The Defendant, William Joel Lauper, was convicted by a Rutherford County Jury of especially aggravated kidnapping, four counts of aggravated assault, domestic assault resulting in a bodily injury, and preventing another from making an emergency call, for which he received an effective sentence of fifty years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days of confinement. In this direct appeal, the sole issue presented for our review is whether the State established the essential element of serious bodily injury to sustain the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction. After review, we affirm.

The plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against seven defendants. Their complaint asserted various counts arising out of the defendants’ involvement with a water loss claim the plaintiffs had reported to their insurer. Four of the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The trial court granted their motions and simply stated at the end of its order of dismissal, “This is a final and appealable order and there is no just cause for delay.” The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. This Court entered two show cause orders, directing the appellants to either obtain a final judgment or show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed. We then entered an order deferring the matter to the panel of the Court deciding this appeal. We conclude that the trial court improvidently certified its order as final and dismiss this appeal.

This appeal arises from a will contest. Appellant David Riss (“Respondent”) and Appellee Adam Riss (“Petitioner”) dispute the validity of a typewritten codicil and holographic document that purportedly amended the last will and testament their mother, Nancy G. Riss (“Decedent”), executed on September 25, 2018 (“the Will”). After petitioning to admit the Will to probate and set aside the purported codicils, Petitioner filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. He argued that the typewritten codicil and holographic document do not meet applicable statutory requirements and thus should be given no testamentary effect. The trial court agreed with Petitioner and granted his motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court held that the typewritten codicil failed to meet the statutory requirements of a valid testamentary instrument under Tennessee Code Annotated § 32-1-104 because the witness signatures were affixed to an attesting affidavit but not to the codicil. The court further held that the holographic document failed to meet the statutory requirements of a valid holographic testamentary instrument under Tennessee Code Annotated § 32-1-105 because it did not contain any material provisions directing the distribution of Decedent’s estate. This appeal followed. We affirm.

Vanessa Faddoul sought an order of protection as a stalking victim pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-3-617 against her neighbor, Edward James Beyer, in Williamson County General Sessions Court. After holding an evidentiary hearing, the general sessions court issued a one-year order of protection prohibiting Mr. Beyer from contacting or coming about the victim, Mrs. Faddoul, or her family, and restricting Mr. Beyer’s second amendment rights. Mr. Beyer appealed to the Williamson County Circuit Court. Upon a pre-trial motion of Mr. Beyer, the circuit court modified the general sessions order by restoring Mr. Beyer’s second amendment right to possess firearms. Following three days of hearings on the petition, but before the circuit court could rule on the merits of the de novo appeal, Mr. Beyer filed a “Notice of Voluntary Nonsuit and Dismissal of Appeal” to dismiss his appeal of the general sessions court ruling against him in Case No. 2022OP- 176, purportedly pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41.01(1). Because Mr. Beyer dismissed his appeal, the circuit court entered an order “affirming” the judgment of the general sessions court, save the second amendment issue, dismissing the appeal, and granting Mrs. Faddoul leave to apply for an award of attorney’s fees. Thereafter, Mrs. Faddoul requested attorney’s fees in the amount of $168,112.50 under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-3-617(a)(1), discretionary costs in the amount of $5,248.62 under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 54.04(2), and $2,579.37 in “non-discretionary cost expenses.” The circuit court denied her request for attorney’s fees and discretionary costs in toto based on several findings. It found that she was not entitled to an award of mandatory attorney’s fees under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-3-617 because, inter alia, stalking victims are not entitled to the same “enhanced protections” as domestic abuse victims, that it did not complete the hearing on the petition, which it found to be a prerequisite for fees, and that the amount of attorney’s fees requested was unreasonable. The circuit court also declined to award Mrs. Faddoul any discretionary costs. Both parties appeal. Contrary to Mr. Beyer’s argument that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to take any action after he purportedly “nonsuited” his appeal, we find that the circuit court retained jurisdiction and that it did not err in affirming the judgment of the general sessions court and granting Mrs. Faddoul leave to request attorney’s fees. Because Mrs. Faddoul,as a stalking victim, is entitled to the same rights afforded to domestic abuse victims, and as mandated pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-3-617(a)(1), we hold that Mrs. Faddoul is entitled to recover the reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees she incurred in the general sessions court and the circuit court proceedings. Thus, we reverse the circuit court’s decision regarding attorney’s fees and remand for the circuit court to award Mrs. Faddoul her reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in the general sessions court and the circuit court proceedings under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-3- 617(a)(1). We affirm in part and reverse in part the denial of Mrs. Faddoul’s request for discretionary costs, finding that some of the court reporters’ invoices clearly delineate the discretionary costs that she is entitled to recover pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 54.04(2). We also conclude that Mrs. Faddoul is entitled to her reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees incurred in this appeal under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-3- 617(a)(1).

Sevier County lawyer Tommy Joe Norton received a public censure from the Tennessee Supreme Court on April 15. The court found that Norton violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.4, 3.2, 3.4 and 8.4(d) while representing four clients. During this time, Norton closed his office and changed his phone number but failed to inform clients of the changes, leaving them no way to contact him. The court also found that Norton failed to maintain communication with and diligently represent the clients. Additionally, in one case, Norton failed to appear in court and incorrectly advised his client not to appear. In a second case he asked for multiple continuances, which delayed the proceedings. And in another case, he essentially abandoned his client and failed to show up in court.

The Tennessee Justice Bus, in partnership with the Tennessee Department of Correction’s Davidson County Day Reporting Center, will host a general legal advice clinic on April 24 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. CDT at the Nashville Day Reporting Center in Madison. The Help4TN clinic will provide participants an opportunity to speak with an attorney, ask legal questions, receive guidance and access legal resources. Registration is not required. For more information, visit the Justice for All website.

The Tennessee Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that while Nashville Mayor Freddie O’Connell’s transit referendum can largely proceed as approved by voters, funds raised through the surcharge cannot be used to purchase land for housing and parks. In a unanimous opinion, Judge Andy Bennett wrote that such purchases fall outside the scope of the state’s IMPROVE Act, which governs transit funding, the Nashville Banner reports. The court noted, however, that the ineligible expenses make up only about 1% of the plan and do not invalidate the overall proposal. The Committee to Stop an Unfair Tax, which filed a lawsuit to block the plan, responded to the decision, with an organization spokesperson calling parts of the ruling “murky” and suggesting a potential appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court. Metro Legal Director Wally Dietz and O’Connell called the decision an “overwhelming victory” that upholds the will of voters.

The Tennessee legislature has approved a bipartisan bill, SB256/HB601, that will allow wrongfully convicted individuals who plead guilty to crimes they did not commit to file innocence claims in court based on new evidence. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Todd Gardenhire, R-Chattanooga, and Rep. Bob Freeman, D-Nashville creates a more direct path for innocence claims to be reviewed, the Chattanoogan reports. Currently, individuals who plead guilty have no legal avenue to return to court with new evidence. The bill establishes a process that allows judges to reopen cases when both the district attorney general and the individual — or their attorney — jointly file a petition. Before 2016, people with new evidence could file an error coram nobis petition, even if they had pleaded guilty, but the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that year that the statute applied only to those convicted at trial. The new legislation would amend the statute to explicitly include guilty pleas. Read more in an op ed from the bill sponsor.

Car booting will remain largely prohibited in Tennessee after a judge ruled in favor of the state, saying the law restricting the practice benefits the public, WVLT-TV reports. In recent years, multiple booting companies in Middle Tennessee have been accused of operating without licenses and failing to remove boots from vehicles in a timely manner. Concerns about predatory practices prompted the Tennessee General Assembly to pass a law last year making car booting illegal in most situations. One company, Nashville Booting, then sued the state, arguing the law destroyed its business. The judge said that while the law may harm booting companies, it protects the public from reported industry abuses. Current law allows booting only under specific circumstances. New legislation pending this session could ban the practice outright statewide.

The University of Memphis School of Law has launched the Transformative Justice Initiative, a new student organization dedicated to "reimagining justice beyond incarceration, punishment and surveillance." According to the school, the group will serve students interested in movement lawyering, public defense, decarceral legal strategies and building alternatives to the criminal legal system. Through events, panels, workshops and collaborations with advocates and impacted communities, the initiative aims to engage law students, attorneys and others who want to promote a legal system focused on healing, accountability and liberation. Attorneys who want to get involved or learn more can contact Tyler.Foster@memphis.edu or visit the school's website.