Trusted by over 55,000 firms, LawPay was designed with legal professionals in mind. With LawPay, you can offer clients flexible ways to pay with debit, credit, and eCheck. You can also offer Pay Later, allowing your firm to get paid upfront while clients pay in installments. The Next Day Payments feature allows you access funds 24 hours sooner than the standard payout speed. LawPay uses military-grade encryption and the highest level of precautions for PCI DSS compliance, giving your firm and clients peace of mind. Get started >>

Germantown resident Alexis Luttrell is facing a court date after being cited for violating a local ordinance regarding the length of time holiday decorations can be displayed. Luttrell, who used an 8-foot skeleton man and a skeleton dog for multiple holiday displays, received a citation for keeping the decorations up beyond the 30-day limit set by Germantown's property maintenance code. According to the Commercial Appeal, Luttrell, citing her First Amendment rights and plans to challenge the citation, arguing the ordinance infringes on free speech by regulating the content and timing of decorations. The Institute for Justice is supporting her claim, asserting that the city’s actions are unconstitutional and discriminatory, as they limit personal expression based on the nature of the display. The court will consider whether Germantown’s regulations unlawfully restrict Luttrell's right to choose her holiday decorations on Feb. 13 in Germantown Municipal Court.

In 1996, the Petitioner, Alvin Dean Shaver, pled guilty to two counts of first degree murder and was sentenced to concurrent terms of life without the possibility of parole. In 2024, the Petitioner applied for a writ of habeas corpus. He alleged that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate the charges because the statute pursuant to which he was convicted did not have the constitutionally required style, “Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee.” The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the application for the writ, and the Petitioner appealed. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

Defendant, David Edward Seickendick, appeals the judgment of the Cumberland County Criminal Court revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the balance of his previously ordered probationary sentence in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider Defendant’s medical conditions in revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his original sentence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has announced that a bipartisan coalition of states led by Tennessee has reached a settlement in principle in its lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA). Skrmetti and Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares, along with the Florida, District of Columbia and New York attorneys general, filed a federal lawsuit against the NCAA in January 2024, alleging that its Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) Recruiting Ban creates anticompetitive restrictions that violate federal antitrust law and harm current and future student-athletes. In February 2024, a federal judge in east Tennessee agreed and blocked the NCAA’s enforcement of the rule throughout the duration of the litigation.

The pro se Defendant, Darrell E. Nance,1 appeals from the trial court’s summary dismissal of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. Specifically, the Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred in concluding that his sentence of life imprisonment was legal, (2) the State’s motion to dismiss his motion was untimely, and (3) the trial court erred in declining to appoint counsel and hold a hearing on his motion. Because we conclude that the Defendant’s notice of appeal was untimely filed and that the interest of justice does not require waiver of the timely filing requirement, we dismiss the appeal.

The Defendant, James R. Holley, appeals the Henderson County Circuit Court’s denial of his request for alternative sentencing after his guilty pleas to eight counts involving drugs, weapons, and traffic offenses. Based on our review, we conclude that the Defendant failed to provide this court with an adequate appellate record. Accordingly, his appeal is dismissed.

The Petitioner, Rickius Grant, appeals the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for two counts of attempting to traffic a person for a commercial sex act and resulting concurrent six-year sentences. On appeal, he contends that the post-conviction court erred by finding that his petition was barred by the statute of limitations because due process required that the statute of limitations be tolled. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post- conviction court.

The Defendant, Forrest Scott Evans, pled guilty to the offense of aggravated assault, and the trial court sentenced him to a term of seven years and six months. The court suspended the sentence and placed the Defendant on probation. Thereafter, the Defendant committed new crimes in Virginia. When the Defendant was returned to Tennessee, the trial court revoked the suspended sentence and ordered him to serve it in full. The Defendant appeals, arguing that a full revocation was an abuse of discretion. Upon our review, we respectfully disagree and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Roger Bridges,1 was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of three counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony; sexual battery, a Class E felony; rape, a Class B felony; and rape of a child, a Class A felony, and was sentenced by the trial court to an effective term of fifty-one years at 100% in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The four victims involved were three sisters and their female first cousin, and the offenses occurred over a two-month period that culminated on June 12, 2018, when one of the three sisters divulged the abuse to her father, who called the police. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and argues that the State violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S 83 (1973), “by failing to produce information concerning the pending investigation of a male family member for sexual abuse crimes against some of the same family group.”2 Based on our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.