CLAY, Circuit Judge. This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arises from a criminal investigation of Plaintiffs for a fire that occurred at their restaurant in Westland, Michigan. In Case No. 19-1882, Defendants John Adams and Michael Reddy Jr. appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ civil conspiracy claim on qualified immunity grounds. In Case No. 19-1870, Defendant Michael Reddy Sr. appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ civil conspiracy claim for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. And in Case No. 19-1857, Defendant Richard Sanchez appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment unlawful search and seizure claim on qualified immunity grounds. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss Reddy Sr.’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction and affirm the district court’s order with respect to the other Defendants.

The Defendant, Yancey Lee Williams II, was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder, for which he received a sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, specifically, challenging the element of premeditation; (2) the trial court erred by finding that he was engaged in unlawful activity and thereby omitting the “no duty to retreat” language from the self-defense instruction; (3) the prosecutor made improper and inflammatory comments regarding religion and race during closing arguments; and (4) plain error occurred when the State failed to provide pretrial documentation of a witness’s statement to law enforcement despite an order being in place directing such disclosure. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In Tennessee, is there ever a time when a prosecutor would not be allowed to dismiss a case after indictment? Politics aside, the controversy over the United States Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn presents important issues regarding the scope of authority between prosecutors and courts.

The Defendant, Benjamin L. Bradford, was convicted by a Gibson County Circuit Court jury of first degree premeditated murder, first degree murder in the perpetration of theft, and destroying, tampering, or fabricating evidence. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-202(a)(1)-(2) (first degree murder) (2018) (subsequently amended), 39-16-503 (2018) (destroying, tampering with, or fabricating evidence). The jury imposed a sentence of life without parole for each of the first degree murder convictions and merged the judgments. The trial court imposed a fifteen-year sentence for destroying, tampering, or fabricating evidence, to be served consecutively to the life-without-parole sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The 150th Kentucky Derby, running this weekend in Louisville, will take place without the participation of Muth, a horse that many contend is the fastest in this year's field of three-year-olds. Muth's trainer is Bob Baffert, who also worked with 2021 Kentucky Derby winner Medina Spirit, who failed a post-race drug test for steroids. Baffert was subsequently disqualified and given a two year suspension, which was later extended through the end of 2024, from competing at Churchill Downs. The ABA Journal reports that Zedan Racing Stables, which owns Muth, sued Churchill Downs seeking emergency injunctive relief to let Muth race in Saturday's contest. A local court rejected the bid. Churchill Downs applauded the decision, saying the court stopped Zedan from litigating its way into the Derby "at the expense of other owners and trainers who played by the rules."

This is an appeal from the trial court’s order dismissing, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, an action for declaratory judgment filed by the petitioner homeowners’ association against the respondent developer. The developer had formed the homeowners’ association to oversee the development of Timberlake Subdivision in Knox County and had executed a declaration of covenants and restrictions that provided, inter alia, that the developer retained the exclusive right to appoint a three-member review board to oversee construction of the subdivision until such time as the developer assigned its rights to the homeowners’ association. The declaration also included a waiver provision that enabled the developer to unilaterally amend and waive any portion of the declaration at any time. In October 2020, the developer and homeowners’ association executed and recorded a document assigning to the homeowners’ association the developer’s rights to appoint members to the review board, expressly excluding from the assignment any lots still owned by the developer or its affiliate company. The developer then executed a waiver document waiving its obligation to submit its remaining lots to board review. The homeowners’ association filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, seeking a declaration from the trial court that (1) the developer had assigned to the homeowners’ association all rights to appoint members of the oversight board; 2) there existed only one oversight board, which was now controlled by the homeowners’ association; and (3) the waiver document was null and void. Upon a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) by the developer, the trial court dismissed the declaratory judgment action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, finding that the declaration, the assignment, and the waiver documents were unambiguous as a matter of law and that they granted the developer the power to retain oversight of its lots and to waive any portion of the declaration. The trial court further determined that because the president of the homeowners’ association had signed the assignment, the homeowners’ association was estopped from arguing that the developer had assigned all authority to appoint members to the review board to the association. The homeowners’ association filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, arguing, inter alia, that dismissal of a declaratory judgment action based on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) is generally improper and that the trial court should instead have declared the rights and obligations of the parties with respect to the documents. The trial court denied the motion to alter or amend and the homeowners’ association timely appealed. Upon careful review, we find that the trial court improperly dismissed the declaratory judgment action for failure to state a claim after determining that the documents at issue were unambiguous as a matter of law and essentially declaring the rights of the parties. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint and its award of attorney’s fees to the developer based on that dismissal, and we affirm that portion

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has joined a coalition of 21 states in a lawsuit opposing a new rule from The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) that would prevent the private sale of firearms. Under the rule, hobbyists who sell firearms to family members, or a hunter who trades a firearm with a friend, could be convicted of a felony, the lawsuit claims.

In this appeal, the trial court granted a motion to rescind a tax sale with respect to a particular parcel. We vacate the trial court’s order and remand for the trial court to enter an order containing sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law reflecting the basis for its decision. To the extent that a constitutional challenge is raised, the trial court should also determine on remand whether notice must be provided to the Tennessee Attorney General pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 24.04.

Mother seeks accelerated review of the denial of her motions to recuse both the trial judge and the child support magistrate. After a de novo review, we affirm the denial of the motion to recuse the trial judge. We transfer the appeal of the denial of the motion to recuse the child support magistrate to the trial court.

The parties are all of the owners of four neighboring lots in a small, exclusive residential development. Each lot is subject to restrictive covenants. Kurt M. Chambless and Jill S. Chambless originally filed suit against Terry L. Rutledge and Cynthia L. Rutledge, averring that the Rutledges were violating the restrictive covenants. While the Chamblesses’ suit was pending, all of the lot owners (other than the Chamblesses) voted to amend the restrictive covenants. The Chamblesses amended their suit to seek a declaratory judgment invalidating the amended covenants and seeking a refund of certain monies they paid to Mr. Rutledge for the benefit of the homeowners’ association.1 Each of the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Chamblesses’ declaratory judgment claim due to their failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The trial court granted the motions to dismiss, in part, and ruled that the amended covenants were valid and enforceable. The Chamblesses timely appealed to this Court. Upon careful review, we find that the trial court erred in granting the motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim after determining that the amended covenants are valid and enforceable. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s dismissal of those parts of the Amended Complaint challenging the validity of the amended covenants, and we affirm that portion of the trial court’s order declaring that the amended covenants are valid and enforceable. Further, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the declaratory judgment claim against the Maxwells and the Dotys arising out of Mr. Rutledge’s use of association funds but decline to award the Maxwells and the Dotys their attorneys’ fees on appeal.