The TBA will host a Court of Appeals Boot Camp on Oct. 8 in Nashville, offering lawyers the opportunity to observe oral arguments in real cases and hear analysis from participating attorneys on preparation and advocacy strategies. The program, designed to strengthen skills in both written and oral appellate advocacy, also will feature a networking lunch for participants. Speakers include Tennessee Court of Appeals Judges Andy Bennett, Frank Clement Jr., Neal McBrayer and Jeffrey Usman. The program will run from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. CDT at the Tennessee Court of Appeals. For more information and to register, visit the TBA website.

Belmont University College of Law hosted its annual Law Review Symposium Sept. 19, highlighting emerging challenges in national security, data privacy, cybersecurity and constitutional law. This year’s theme was “Data, Power and Security: Contemporary Issues in National Security and the Law,” and the event featured sessions on executive orders, AI regulation, non-fungible tokens, vehicle-ramming attacks and cyber insurance. The student-run symposium offered students practical experience in organizing scholarly events while connecting them with practitioners and academics addressing fast-evolving legal and technological issues. “We started planning the symposium in the spring of 2025 ... There was so much valuable information being shared, and it was clear people were fully engaged with the topic and conversation,” said Executive Symposium Editor Kristi Jensen. Symposium presentations and discussions will be published in the second volume of the Belmont Law Review in the spring.

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. After a breakout year in 2024, Diego Pavia wanted to continue playing quarterback for Vanderbilt University during the 2025 football season. But National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) eligibility rules barred him from playing. So he sued the NCAA. After he won a preliminary injunction, the NCAA appealed. But in the meantime, the NCAA gave Pavia exactly what he wanted—a waiver that guaranteed he could play for Vanderbilt in 2025. Because that waiver provides Pavia complete relief at the preliminary- injunction stage, we dismiss the NCAA’s appeal as moot.

HERMANDORFER, Circuit Judge. Daniel Jackson went to trial on a charge of possessing methamphetamine and fentanyl with the intent to distribute. At trial, Jackson took the stand and insisted that an officer planted the drugs discovered in his car and near his person. Jackson’s story didn’t stick; the jury convicted. The district court then sentenced Jackson to 97 months’ imprisonment and a term of supervised release. Jackson now challenges two components of his sentence. He first argues that the district court erred by imposing an obstruction-of-justice enhancement based on its finding that Jackson committed perjury at trial. Jackson also objects to a supervised-release condition permitting searches of his electronic devices. We affirm.

The Defendant, Caprice Lashon Peete, was convicted by a Tipton County Circuit Court jury of first degree premeditated murder, for which he received a sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and argues that the trial court erred by not excusing a juror who failed to disclose that she knew one of the State’s primary witnesses, by not allowing the Defendant to cross-examine another State’s witness about the underlying facts of the witness’s 2023 conviction for convicted felon in possession of a firearm, and by allowing the prosecutor to make inappropriate comments in closing argument without an adequate curative instruction by the trial court or the trial court’s enforcing its order that the prosecutor retract the inappropriate comment. The Defendant further argues that he is entitled to a new trial under the doctrine of cumulative error. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Williamson County jury convicted the Defendant, James Andrew DiDomenico, of four counts of rape, and the trial court imposed an effective sentence of ten years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant raises several issues. First, he contends that the trial court committed the following trial errors: (1) excluding evidence that the victim was dating a former client; (2) admitting cumulative testimony that repeated the victim’s account; (3) admitting testimony concerning letters sent by the Defendant’s divorce attorneys to the victim; and (4) refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of mistake of fact. He further argues that, even if these alleged errors are individually insufficient to warrant reversal, their cumulative effect deprived him of a fair trial. The Defendant also challenges the denial of his motion for a new trial based on purportedly newly discovered evidence, as well as the trial court’s sentencing determinations. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A property developer purchased a portion of a two-story building without having fully examined the property prior to acquiring it. The only existing means of accessing the second floor of his property was via a staircase owned by his neighbor. The developer did not have an express easement to use the staircase, and disagreements arose between the developer and his neighbor over the developer’s use of his neighbor’s staircase. In response, the developer filed suit. The developer claimed an easement implied by prior use, an easement by necessity, and/or a prescriptive easement. At trial, the neighbor sought, in effect, an involuntary dismissal at the close of the developer’s proof. The trial court granted that motion, reasoning that the developer failed to meet his burden of proof with respect to all three of his easement theories. The developer appeals. We affirm.

In this compensation appeal, the employee questions the trial court’s decision to grant the employer’s motion for summary judgment. The employee suffered electrical burns in the course and scope of his work as an electrician. The employer accepted the claim and provided medical treatment until the authorized treating physician released the employee at maximum medical improvement, at which time it ceased providing benefits. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court ordered the employer to provide another panel, which it did. After that selected physician also released the employee from care, the court entered a scheduling order. The employer then filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the employee did not have any admissible medical proof that his on-going medical complaints arose primarily out of his employment. The employee did not respond to the motion, and the trial court determined the employer had negated an essential element of the employee’s claim. As a result, the trial court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment, and the employee has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s decision and certify it as final.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has set 2026 execution dates for four death row inmates, including Christa Pike, the state’s only woman on death row. According to the Tennessean, The court issued orders on Sept. 30 scheduling executions for Tony Carruthers on May 21, Anthony Darrell Dugard Hines on Aug. 13, Pike on Sept. 30 and Gary Wayne Sutton on Dec. 3. Carruthers was sentenced to death for the 1994 kidnapping, shooting and burying alive of three people in Memphis and has argued he is mentally ill and incompetent to be executed. Hines was sentenced for the 1985 rape, robbery and murder of a motel maid, and his case briefly reached the U.S. Supreme Court before being reversed. Pike was convicted for the 1995 torture killing of a fellow Knoxville Job Corps student and would be the first woman executed in Tennessee in more than 200 years; her attorneys cite her youth and severe mental illness as grounds to commute her sentence. Sutton was sentenced for the 1992 killings of a friend and the friend’s sister in Blount County; he maintains his innocence and supporters say he is intellectually disabled. Tennessee resumed executions earlier this year following a pause in 2022, and all four inmates continue to challenge their sentences on legal and mental health grounds.

Dueling proposals to end the federal government shutdown failed in the U.S. Senate today. While critical services such as mail delivery and Social Security and Medicare benefits continue, other federal operations have ground to a halt, sending the government into its 22nd shutdown since 1976. Starting today, federal workers nationwide are affected, including more than 32,000 Tennesseans, the Tennessean reports. The state is expected to see closures at national parks, including the Great Smoky Mountains and Manhattan Project sites, as well as local U.S. Department of Agriculture farm service centers. According to The Hill, federal courts may be forced to limit operations as soon as next week after funding lapses, potentially delaying trials and hearings across the country. Unlike past shutdowns, when courts were able to rely on fees and other resources to maintain functionality, ABC News reports that years of tighter budgets and rising costs make sustaining full operations much more difficult today.