Defendant, James Andrew Paige, appeals from his convictions for three counts of rape, for which he is serving an eleven-year sentence in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by (1) denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) admitting the victim’s hearsay statements; and (3) failing to inquire into defense counsel’s unintentional contact with a juror or declare a mistrial. Defendant also avers that the cumulative effect of these errors entitles him to relief. We affirm.

This is an interlocutory appeal concerning the scope of a commercial property insurance policy and whether the insured has stated sufficient facts to invoke coverage. The insurer filed a complaint for a declaratory judgment, seeking a declaration that the policy at issue did not provide coverage for the insured’s claimed losses. The insured filed a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that the policy provided coverage and asserting a breach of contract claim. The insurer filed a motion to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings, which the trial court denied. We granted permission for an interlocutory appeal. After interpreting the policy, we determine that the insured failed to invoke coverage, and we reverse the trial court’s contrary finding. However, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss, finding that the counterclaim sufficiently stated a claim for a declaratory judgment. Because the pleadings had not closed when the trial court ruled on the motion for judgment on the pleadings, we vacate the order of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

The circuit court determined that two grounds for termination of a mother’s parental rights to her child had been proven by clear and convincing evidence but concluded that the petitioners failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. The petitioners appealed. Discerning no error, we affirm the circuit court’s decision.

This appeal arises out of a health care liability claim. The case proceeded to trial, and the jury entered a verdict in favor of the appellee-defendant. The appellant-plaintiff appeals the trial court’s acceptance of two of defendant’s expert witnesses. Upon diligent review of the record, we conclude that the trial court erred in allowing defendant’s causation expert witness to testify about his interpretation of a diagnostic image when his opinion about that image had not been properly disclosed as required by the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. We also conclude that this error more probably than not affected the judgment. We further conclude that the trial court erred in allowing defendant’s standard-of-care expert witness to testify despite not satisfying the locality rule contained in the Health Care Liability Act. However, we conclude that this error did not more probably than not affect the judgment. We vacate the jury’s verdict and the trial court’s judgment and remand this matter for a new trial.

The father of the minor child appeals the termination of his parental rights. The paternal aunt and uncle, who sought custody of the minor child, appeal the denial of their motion to intervene. We affirm both decisions.

In this case involving termination of a mother’s parental rights, the trial court determined that clear and convincing evidence supported termination as to two statutory grounds: abandonment by failure to visit and persistence of the conditions that led to the child’s removal. The trial court did not find clear and convincing evidence to support the alleged ground of failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume legal and physical custody of or financial responsibility for the child. The trial court further determined that termination of parental rights was in the child’s best interest. The mother has appealed, contesting the termination of her parental rights and additionally arguing that the adoptive father lacked standing to file the petition due to his criminal history and the fact that he is not legally related to the child. Upon review, we determine that the adoptive father had standing to file the termination petition because he had maintained physical custody of the child for nearly a year before filing the termination petition. As to termination of the mother’s parental rights, we reverse the trial court’s determination that the petitioners had failed to establish the statutory ground of failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume legal and physical custody of the child. Accordingly, we find that statutory ground also supports termination of the mother’s parental rights. In all other respects, we affirm.

A lawsuit against freight railroad company CSX Transportation is set to go to trial in August. A jury could determine the company’s role in the deaths of Waverly flood victims in 2021, the Tennessean reports. The plaintiffs allege that a debris-filled culvert owned by CSX acted like a dam, creating a large pool of floodwater. When the bridge and culvert gave way, they say it formed a “deadly tidal wave” that hit the heart of the small town. CSX has denied liability for the deaths in legal filings. The company’s attorneys write that the flood was tragic, there is no evidence that CSX played any role in the disaster.

Robertson County Attorney Clyde Richert will retire from his position effective July 1 after serving for 36 years as county attorney and practicing law in Springfield for 49 years, according to Main Street Media TN. Richert informed county commissioners of his decision during the May 18 Robertson County Commission meeting, saying he plans to transition responsibilities while remaining available to assist with ongoing county matters. A Springfield native and senior partner at Richert & Dilliha, Richert has represented Robertson County's elected and appointed officials in legal matters for nearly four decades. Richert said his son, Jarod Richert — who also works at the firm — could serve as interim county attorney until the county commission appoints a permanent replacement. He plans to continue his private law practice.

A Davidson County Chancery Court judge has denied a request from death row inmate Tony Carruthers for an independent medical examination following Tennessee's failed attempt to execute him last month, WPLN reports. Carruthers' attorneys sought the examination after execution personnel were unable to establish an IV and a physician unsuccessfully attempted to gain access through other parts of his body before the execution was halted. They also have raised questions about the doctor who was on hand for the procedure. While denying the medical exam request, the court ordered the Tennessee Department of Correction to preserve all equipment, records, communications and other materials related to the execution attempt. Carruthers' legal team is arguing that the incident is relevant to ongoing litigation, which is challenging Tennessee's lethal injection protocol and alleging deficiencies in the training and oversight of execution personnel.

A detainee at the Shelby County Jail died early in the morning today, a spokesperson with the Shelby County Sheriff's Office confirmed. According to the Commercial Appeal, Coltral Pondexter, who was detained at the main jail at 201 Poplar, experienced a medical emergency. The Memphis Fire Department was called and transported the inmate to Regional One Health. Pondexter was pronounced dead at the hospital. The spokesperson said the sheriff's office was investigating Pondexter's death. Last year, 13 inmates reportedly died in custody at the jail.