Hamilton County General Sessions Court Judge Tori Smith has announced her candidacy for the August 2026 special election to permanently fill the seat, Chattanoogan.com reports. Smith was appointed to the bench in 2024 to fill a vacancy created by Judge Alex McVeagh’s election to the 11th Judicial District Circuit Court. Her campaign said she has presided “with a commitment to ensuring that all who enter her courtroom are treated with dignity.” Before her appointment, Smith worked as an attorney in the 11th Judicial District Public Defender’s Office. The special election is set for Aug. 6, 2026.

The TBA is now accepting applications for its award-winning Public Service Academy, a nonpartisan, statewide effort to encourage attorneys to run for office and take on public service leadership roles in their communities. Those selected for the academy will take part in the program on Nov. 14-15 in Nashville. The program will feature top political and campaign experts who will provide attorneys with the tools they need to run for local public offices such as school board, city council and county commission. Applications are due by Oct. 6. Access the application form here.

Disk encryption keeps client data safe even on lost or stolen devices. Find a comparison chart that shows features and benefits of top providers, in addition to other resources, in the Building a Firm section of TBA’s Law Firm in a Box.

This appeal questions whether the trial court properly granted the employer’s motion to dismiss the employee’s second petition for benefit determination on the basis that the petition was not timely re-filed. Following the filing of her initial petition, the employee asked for a voluntary dismissal of her case, and the trial court entered an order dismissing it without prejudice. Thereafter, the employee did not re-file a new petition for over three years. She asserts she was ill or incapacitated during the time she was required to re-file her case and that equitable tolling of the statute of limitations is appropriate. The employer argues that she waived this argument by failing to raise it in the trial court and that she presented no evidence of incapacity. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the case with prejudice and certify it as final.

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. This suit, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, relies on the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause to challenge rules governing public comments at a school board’s public meetings. During regularly scheduled meetings, the Wilson County Board of Education permits public comments that comply with the Board’s rules, which are set forth in Policy 1.404 and the script the Board’s Chair reads at the beginning of each public comment period. Robin Lemons, Amanda Dunagan-Price, and Moms for Liberty — Wilson County, TN (the “Wilson County Chapter”) challenged three of those rules on First Amendment grounds and moved the district court to enjoin them while the case proceeded. The district court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s order and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

PER CURIAM. Bernard Antoine Hardrick, a pro se Michigan prisoner, sued several officials at the Marquette Branch Prison for civil rights violations stemming from his hazardous living conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Hardrick alleged that an industrial-sized fan blew dangerously cold air and dust into his cell, causing him to cough up blood. Despite knowing of this dangerous condition, Warden Erica Huss allegedly refused to avert the fan because Hardrick had filed grievances against her, thereby violating his First and Eighth Amendment rights. Hardrick also alleged that Warden Huss and members of the prison’s medical staff endangered his health by erroneously designating him as having COVID-19 and placing him in housing with prisoners who had tested positive for the virus, thereby violating his Eighth Amendment rights. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss all of Hardrick’s claims. We reverse as to Hardrick’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Warden Huss and affirm as to all other claims.

Defendant, Matthew James Wood, appeals from his Polk County Criminal Court convictions for attempted possession with intent to sell or deliver more than 0.5 grams of methamphetamine; possession of a firearm with the intent to go armed during the attempted commission of a dangerous felony; and possession of drug paraphernalia, for which he received a total effective sentence of seven years’ incarceration. Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from the traffic stop; (2) the trial court erroneously admitted text messages in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b); (3) the trial court erroneously restricted Defendant’s cross-examination of a police officer; and (4) the evidence of his intent to sell or deliver is insufficient to support his convictions for attempted possession of methamphetamine and possession of a firearm with the intent to go armed during the attempt to commit a dangerous felony. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A woman sued a dog owner for injuries caused by the owner’s dog biting her while she was on the owner’s property. The trial court granted summary judgment to the dog owner based on the owner’s testimony that the dog had never bitten anyone and had never exhibited a dangerous propensity to bite. We have concluded that the woman presented evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to the dog owner’s credibility regarding his knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s decision.

In this interlocutory appeal, the employer argues the trial court erred in ordering it to provide the employee a panel of otolaryngologists and in ordering it to authorize a second opinion examination. The employee originally reported a work-related accident in which she apparently stumbled while at a patient’s home and grabbed a doorframe or railing to steady herself, which caused her to twist her left arm/shoulder. She later reported that she hit the right side of her face and head on a wall during the incident. The authorized orthopedic physician concluded the employee was not a good candidate for shoulder surgery, and the employee requested a second opinion. In addition, the employee sought treatment on her own for “swelling” and “oozing” in her right ear, then requested a panel of otolaryngologists for treatment of her apparent temporomandibular joint disorder she believes was caused by the accident. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court ordered the employer to provide both a second opinion examination related to her left shoulder condition and a panel of otolaryngologists to evaluate her temporomandibular joint condition. The employer has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s order in part, reverse it in part, and remand the case.

In this appeal, the employer asserts the trial court’s decision to grant the employee’s motion for a continuance and hold its motion for summary judgment in abeyance was an abuse of discretion. The employer also contends the trial court erred by referring it for penalties as a result of noncompliance with a previous order. In granting the employee’s motion to continue, the court noted that although it set a deadline for the employee to serve written discovery, it did not issue a full scheduling order or set any additional discovery or proof deadlines. The court determined that the employer’s motion for summary judgment was premature and ruled that it would hold the motion in abeyance “pending issuance of a full scheduling order.” The court also determined the employer failed to comply with its prior order compelling it to allow the employee to return to his authorized provider. As a result, the court concluded the employer’s actions had “deprived” the employee of the ability to get information necessary to respond to the employer’s dispositive motion. The employer has appealed. Upon careful review of the record and consideration of the pertinent statutes and regulations, we affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case.