Petitioner, Christopher David Hodge, appeals from the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis, which was filed approximately twenty years after his conviction for second degree murder. Because the evidence that Petitioner claims is newly discovered does not show that Petitioner is actually innocent of the underlying crime for which he was convicted, he is not entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.

The Petitioner, Darrel Hochhalter, who is serving a twenty-two-year sentence for convictions of six counts of sexual battery by an authority figure and one count of rape, appeals from the Hickman County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. He contends on appeal that the habeas corpus court erred in summarily dismissing his petition. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

Richard Brock Hill, a former Deputy Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), brought an action for defamation against the State regarding statements made in connection with a sexual harassment investigation that resulted in the termination of his employment. The Claims Commission dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. In reaching this conclusion, the Claims Commission analyzed the potentially defamatory statements and concluded that each statement was time-barred and/or failed as to an essential element of a defamation claim. Regarding statements contained in an “Investigation Summary Memorandum,” the Claims Commission also concluded that Mr. Hill’s defamation claim failed because the document was prepared by a Deputy Commissioner and was, accordingly, protected by absolute executive privilege. We conclude that Mr. Hill adequately alleged defamation such that dismissal of his claim was error and that the existent record and filings do not support a conclusion that, as a matter of law, absolute executive privilege protects the statements contained in the Investigation Summary Memorandum. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

After discovering that her neighbors had built a home on rural property that she owned, the property owner brought an ejectment action to remove them. The neighbors asserted an affirmative defense based upon Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-2-103, which protects against ejectment if the defendant can show adverse possession for seven years. Following a trial, the trial court found that the neighbors had proven adverse possession and set a boundary line of the possessed area, drawing upon an exhibit produced by a surveyor. Thepropertyownerassertsthattheboundarydeterminedbythetrialcourtwas too expansive and unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. The neighbors assert that the trial court drew the boundary line in a manner too restrictive, failing to encapsulate the entirety of the area they actually possessed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this post-divorce action, Husband appeals the trial court’s classification of certain property. Because the trial court’s order contains conflicting findings, we vacate and remand.

The defendant, Bath Fitter Tennessee, Inc. (“Bath Fitter”), appeals the denial of its motion to submit its contract dispute with the homeowner to arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). The parties executed a written contract for the installation of a new shower for the homeowner, the parts for which were manufactured in Canada. Both parties signed the contract on the front page of the two-page agreement where the signature lines were provided; however, neither party signed or initialed the arbitration provision that appeared on the back of the contract. Although not explicitly stated in its order, it appears that the trial court denied arbitration based upon the Tennessee Uniform Arbitration Act (“TUAA”), which, at the time of contracting, required that arbitration clauses in residential construction contracts be separately signed or initialed. It is undisputed that the materials installed by Bath Fitter were manufactured in Canada; thus, the transaction involves interstate commerce. For that reason, the FAA applies. Because the FAA does not require signatures or initials to indicate approval of arbitration clauses and preempts conflicting state laws that invalidate otherwise valid arbitration agreements, we reverse and remand with instructions to submit the contract dispute to arbitration pursuant to the FAA and stay proceedings until arbitration is complete.

Stewart County General Sessions Court Judge Andy Brigham is being honored for his service to CASA in Stewart County. A profile from News Channel 5 says Brigham worked to bring CASA to the county and has spent 14 years “giving a voice to children in need.” The piece concludes that “his dedication, humility and kindness make him stand out as a true leader.” A donation of $250 from Bart Durham Injury Law will be made to the organization in honor of the recognition. To nominate someone for the channel’s “My Hero” feature contact myhero@newschannel5.com.

The Tennessee Supreme Court imposed a public censure on Bedford County lawyer Richard Lamar Dugger on April 9. The court found that Dugger violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 3.2 and 3.4 in representing one client in a bankruptcy case and a second client in a landlord tenant case. In the first complaint, the court found that Dugger failed to include his client’s home in a bankruptcy matter, which resulted in his client’s home being foreclosed. In the second matter, Dugger failed to appear in court, failed to take action following the entry of an adverse judgment against his client and delayed the outcome of the case.

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed legislation limiting the authority of federal district judges to issue nationwide orders. The Associated Press reports that HR 1526, which passed by a vote of 219-213, limits the scope of injunctive relief ordered by a district judge to those parties before the court, rather than applying the relief nationally. In the U.S. Senate, similar bills have been introduced by Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, (S. 1206) and Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley (S. 1099). The Hill has more on Grassley’s proposal.

The Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility (BPR) has issued two new ethics opinions. The first, 2025-F-171, addresses the ethical propriety of a non-disparagement clause in a products liability case settlement agreement that makes the lawyers in Firm A parties to the settlement proposed by Firm B. The second, 2025-F-172, addresses limited scope legal services provided by a private attorney. That opinion states that attorneys may engage in limited scope representation so long as it is reasonable under the circumstances and the client gives informed consent, preferably in writing. Attorneys also must follow the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rule 11.0l(b) and (c) regarding disclosure of such limited scope representation. See all past opinions from the board. Update: On April 21, 2025, the Board of Professional Responsibility voted to withdraw formal ethics opinion 2025-F-172.