Belmont Law, Legal Aid Society of Middle Tennessee and the Cumberlands and the Metro Nashville Office of Conservatorship Management will hold a conservatorship clinic on Feb. 12 from 5-8 p.m. CST. Attorney volunteers are needed to assist pre-screened clients with the conservatorship process. Belmont Law students will assist the attorneys by filling out paperwork. The event will take place at Belmont Law, 1901 15th Ave. S., Nashville 37212. Want to volunteer? Contact Ginny Blake at ginny.blake@belmont.edu.

Registration is now open for the next free advice clinic for Black-owned small businesses and nonprofits, set for Feb. 20 in Nashville. The clinic, sponsored by the Arts & Business Council's Volunteer Lawyers & Professionals for the Arts and Bradley, provides assistance with business formation and corporate governance, review of contracts and guidance in navigating local ordinances and state regulations. Register by Feb. 17 to participate. Attorneys should email vlpa@abcnashville.org to volunteer.

The TBA Intellectual Property (IP) Section will hold the second installment of its 2025 webcast series on Feb. 19 with a look at best practices in trademark law. The presentation, featuring John Stevens with Patterson Intellectual Property Law, will provide a brief discussion of the foundations of trademark law followed by a look at common issues encountered by IP practitioners. The presentation will wrap up with a discussion of the pitfalls in this practice area and how to avoid them. Section members enjoy discounted registration. Not a section member yet? Get started here and save the date for the next installment of the series: Protecting Your Copyright Registration on March 5.

A Cumberland County jury convicted the Defendant, Robert David Morse, of first degree premeditated murder, and the trial court sentenced him ot life in prison. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction and that the trial court committed two evidentiary errors: (1) admitting multiple autopsy photographs depicting the victim's body; and (2) limiting his cross-examination of Agent Davenport about the Defendant's statement to the police. After review, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Defendant, Paul Michael Cheairs, was convicted by a Madison County jury of two counts of possession of marijuana with intent to sell and or deliver, two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia, one count of misdemeanor unlawful possession of a firearm, and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of seventeen years. Defendant appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred in admitting a rap video made after the arrest, by allowing expert testimony from a lieutenant, and in sentencing. Upon our review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal concerns the trial court’s grant of a petition for civil contempt for failure to comply with orders regarding the division of marital assets and awards of spousal and child support against the husband and his relatives, who held an interest in the properties at issue. We affirm the trial court’s grant of orders of civil contempt against all parties. We also conclude that this appeal is frivolous and remand for an assessment of damages.

Ina Grace Jacobi sued VendEngine, Inc. (“VendEngine”), alleging that she was wrongfully arrested due to VendEngine’s negligent design and operation of an inmate messaging system. The trial court determined that the gravamen of Ms. Jacobi’s claim was for malicious prosecution and granted summary judgment to VendEngine after concluding she failed to prove the elements of that claim. Ms. Jacobi appealed. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s decision.

This appeal arises from a divorce. The former husband challenges the classification and division of the marital estate. Because the husband failed to comply with our procedural rules, we deem his issues waived and dismiss the appeal.

The trial court dismissed the appellant’s petition on a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02 motion. Because the appellant’s brief falls well short of the requirements of both the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and the rules of this Court, we dismiss the appeal.

A husband and wife commenced this health care liability action by filing a complaint against a medical doctor and his practice. Along with their complaint, the couple filed a “Certificate of Good Faith” as required by Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-122(a), which requires certification that an expert has reviewed the available medical records “for the incident or incidents at issue” and that the expert believed there was “a good faith basis to maintain the action consistent with the requirements of § 29-26-115.” The original complaint alleged that the defendants caused severe permanent and physical injuries when they failed to properly diagnose and treat the husband’s cancer. After the husband died, the wife filed an amended complaint that alleged that the defendants’ negligence also caused the husband’s death. But the wife did not file a new certificate of good faith. For this reason, the defendants sought dismissal under Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-122(c). The trial court granted the motion, and this appeal followed. The issue is whether § 29-26-122(a) requires plaintiffs to file a new certificate of good faith with an amended complaint that alleges a new injury based on already-alleged negligent acts by existing defendants. In Sirbaugh v. Vanderbilt University, 469 S.W.3d 46 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014) we held that a new certificate is required when adding new defendants to existing claims. And in Estate of Vickers v. Diversicare Leasing Corp., No. M2021-00894-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 2111850 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 13, 2022), we held that a new certificate is required when adding new allegations of negligence against existing defendants. Accordingly, we conclude that a new certificate is required when adding an injury based on existing claims against existing defendants. For this and other reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respects.