Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, with offices in Memphis and Nashville, will merge with Bricker Graydon in January, the firms have announced. The combined firm will be known as Bricker Graydon Wyatt LLP. Franklin Jelsma, managing partner of Wyatt, and Chris McCloskey, managing partner of Bricker, said that merger discussions have been in the works for over a year. The combined firm will unite more than 325 attorneys across 14 offices in four states. Bricker operates in Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio. Wyatt has offices in Illinois, Kentucky and Tennessee. The new firm will focus on litigation, mergers and acquisitions, estate planning, and complex public sector representation for the real estate, health care, energy, education, and construction industries. Read more in a news release.

The TBA filed a comment with the Tennessee Supreme Court today on the court’s proposed new rule 20B “Public Access to Appellate Court Filings and Privacy Protection.” The comment supports the court’s goal of making appellate filings more freely accessible to the public, but raises concerns that the rule as drafted would result in adverse consequences to litigants, attorneys and the courts. The court solicited comments on amendments to the Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Rules of Criminal Procedure in August. Read the full TBA comment.

BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judge. Monica Gray helped a colleague secure an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The colleague’s supervisor opposed the accommodation and, a few months later, reported Gray for timecard falsification. State Farm investigated the report and fired Gray. Gray then sued for retaliation under the ADA and Ohio law, claiming that the supervisor singled her out for conduct widespread in the agency because she had helped her colleague advocate for an accommodation. But the district court granted State Farm summary judgment, reasoning that the company had an honest belief that Gray had engaged in misconduct. Because Gray can proceed on a theory of vicarious liability based on the supervisor’s alleged bias, we reverse.

The Defendant, Paul Rogers, pled guilty to a nine-count information charging aggravated assault, evading arrest, and reckless endangerment, among other offenses. As part of the plea, the parties agreed that the Defendant would be sentenced to an effective term of eight years, with the trial court determining the manner of service. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the Defendant’s request for an alternative sentence and imposed a sentence of full confinement. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court should have granted an alternative sentence. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Roosevelt Morris, appeals from the Hickman County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus from his convictions for two counts of attempted first degree murder and his effective forty-seven-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that the habeas corpus court erred by dismissing his petition because his sentence was imposed in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303-04 (2004). We affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

Petitioner, Christopher Alan Hauser, and four co-defendants were convicted of multiple counts of filing a lien without a reasonable basis and multiple counts of forgery. On direct appeal, we affirmed Petitioner’s convictions. State v. Lyons, No. M2019-01946-CCA-R3- CD, 2021 WL 1083703, at *23, perm. app. granted, (Tenn. Crim. App. March 22, 2021). The Tennessee Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the convictions. State v. Lyons, 669 S.W.3d 775, 779-80 (Tenn. 2023). Petitioner, a non-lawyer, filed a petition for post-conviction relief on behalf of himself and his co-defendants. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition without a hearing as untimely. Petitioner appealed on behalf of himself and on behalf of his co-defendants. After review, we disregard claims alleged by Petitioner for the co-defendants and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court as to Petitioner

A high school student suffered a serious injury when a classmate, who was not aiming at the injured student, threw a pencil that ricocheted off a surface and hit the student in the eye. The injured student sued the Clarksville-Montgomery County School System, asserting that the classroom teacher was negligent and that the School System was, accordingly, vicariously liable. The circuit court granted the School System’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the student’s injuries were not reasonably foreseeable. We affirm.

The appellees filed a petition for a temporary restraining order and an injunction, pursuant to the Tennessee Violence in the Workplace Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-14-101, et seq. (“the TVWA”), against a former employee, the appellant. The appellees alleged, inter alia, that the appellant was committing unlawful violence at the workplace by stalking the corporation, the chief executive officer (“CEO”), and the employees. The alleged stalking consisted mostly of public Facebook posts by the appellant. The Chancery Court for Sullivan County (“the Trial Court”) granted the appellees a temporary restraining order prior to the hearing on the injunction. After the hearing, the Trial Court found that the appellant had committed unlawful violence at the workplace via stalking based upon the appellant’s persistent Facebook posts about the appellees and granted the appellees an injunction against the appellant. The Trial Court also found the appellant in contempt for eleven violations of the temporary restraining order. The Trial Court awarded the appellees their attorney’s fees. This appeal ensued. Based upon our review, we reverse the Trial Court’s judgment.

A mother appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to her five children. The juvenile court found three grounds for termination and determined that termination was in the children’s best interests based on clear and convincing evidence. We affirm.

This appeal arises from a petition for judicial review of a decision of the Shelby County Civil Service Merit Board. The appellant worked as a cashier for the Shelby County Trustee’s Office and was terminated after she experienced a cash shortage and attempted to force balance. The Civil Service Merit Board conducted a review hearing and upheld the termination. The appellant sought judicial review in the chancery court, which likewise upheld the termination. The appellant filed this appeal claiming that her procedural due process rights were violated, her termination was not in accordance with the policies and procedures of Shelby County, and that the Civil Service Merit Board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. Discerning no error, we affirm.