APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal involves a father’s obligation to pay support for a non-marital child. Fifteen years after the child’s birth, the Tennessee Department of Human Services, acting on behalf of the child’s mother, filed suit in the Montgomery County Juvenile Court seeking to establish paternity and to obtain past and future support from the father. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered an order establishing paternity and ordering the father to pay $542.50 per month in child support. The juvenile court also awarded the mother $50,000 in back child support. The father now takes issue with the amount of the award for back child support. We have concluded that the evidence does not support the amount of the award for back child support and accordingly remand the case for further proceedings.

The appellant, Johnnie Lamont Dalton, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. On May 5, 1997, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to murder second degree during the voir dire of a jury, wherein he was charged with the offense of murder first degree. The petitioner, collaterally, attacks his guilty plea and conviction for murder second degree upon the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. More specifically, he contends that trial counsel failed to (a) adequately investigate and prepare for trial; (b) failed to interview and subpoena state witnesses; and (c) failed to subpoena potential witnesses, including one witness who the defendant contends would have established that the defendant was not the murderer. The petitioner asserts that were it not for the above actions, he would not have pled guilty on the mistaken advice of counsel.  After a review of the record, we AFFIRM the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief.

We granted this Rule 9, T.R.A.P., application to determine whether the defendant University of Tennessee (“the University”) can be sued for a violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. We find that it cannot be sued for such violations under the current state of the law. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying the University’s motion to dismiss.