APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

An employee of NES married a co-worker’s daughter and was found by the NES civil service board to be in violation of the utility’s nepotism policy that precluded related employees from working in the same “section.” The employee sought judicial review, and the trial court reversed the administrative decision. We affirm the trial court’s judgment because the administrative decision was arbitrary and capricious.

I agree fully with the majority’s analysis in this case. I concur separately only to add a comment as to the portion of the opinion on the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The defendant, Joshua M. Faulk, appeals the revocation of his community corrections sentence and reinstatement of his original ten-year sentence for aggravated burglary, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that he violated the terms of his sentence based on new charges of theft and vandalism. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal involves claims against a decedent’s estate. After claims were filed against the decedent’s estate, the co-executors filed exceptions to the claim and attached a letter previously sent to the claimant discussing their objections to the claims. The probate court held that the co-executors had excepted to the claims only on the basis of timeliness, and that objections in the attached letter would not be considered additional exceptions. The co-executors argued that the claims were void and unenforceable irrespective of whether exceptions were filed; the probate court did not expressly rule on this contention. The claims against the estate were found to be timely filed, so the claims were reduced to judgments against the estate without a hearing on their merits. The co-executors appeal. We affirm in part and remand for findings of fact and conclusions of law under Rule 52.01 on the issue of whether the claims against the estate are unenforceable or void on their face.

The defendant, Howard Lavelle Tate, was convicted of two counts of the sale of over 0.5 grams of a schedule II controlled substances, both Class B felonies, possession of over 26 grams of a schedule II controlled substance with intent to sell, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The defendant received an effective sentence of forty-seven years. The defendant challenges his convictions, asserting that the trial court erred by (1) admitting evidence seized from his home without a search warrant; (2) admitting evidence that was improperly preserved with no established chain of custody; (3) allowing the State to present inconsistent evidence regarding the substance sold; (4) allowing the State to add an additional count to the indictment; and (5) ordering consecutive sentences. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress and the evidence seized as the result of the unlawful search should have been excluded from consideration by the jury. Therefore, the convictions that resulted therefrom, possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of marijuana, and possession of schedule II controlled substance with intent to sell are reversed and remanded. The defendant’s convictions on two counts of sale of over 0.5 grams of schedule II controlled substance and sentences are affirmed.

Plaintiff's action for retaliatory discharge resulted in a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff and an award of $120,000.00. Defendant appealed. We affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court upholding the jury verdict.

Plaintiff received serious injuries in an automobile accident, when she turned left in front of the oncoming vehicle operated by defendant. The suit resulted in a jury trial wherein the jury returned a verdict for defendant, which was approved by the Trial Judge. On appeal, we affirm the Trial Judge's Judgment.

A White County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Mack Broussard, of first degree premeditated murder, and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by (1) failing to instruct the jury on self-defense; (2) failing to redact the portion of the appellant’s statement to police in which he said he was on probation at the time of the crime; and (3) allowing a State witness to give a speculative opinion about the appellant’s motive for the killing. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
 

This is a termination of parental rights case involving the biological father, David R. (“Father”), of the minor child, Leland C.L. The child was taken into custody on June 14, 2010, at two months of age, due to the biological mother’s drug use and the fact that he tested positive for opiates and hydrocodone at birth. The Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a Petition to Terminate Parental Rights naming the father as a respondent on January 7, 2011. Following a bench trial, the Court granted the Petition upon finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that the father had abandoned the child by failing to provide a suitable home for him, and also that the father was in substantial noncompliance with his permanency plans. The Court further found that termination was in the child’s best interest. The father appeals. We affirm.

The Petitioner, Jason Clinard, appeals the Stewart County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction of first degree premeditated murder and resulting life sentence. On appeal, he contends that he was prejudiced by trial counsel’s agreeing to transfer his case from juvenile to circuit court. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.
 

In this action the defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds the statute of limitation had run on plaintiff's cause of action. The Trial Court overruled the Motion on the grounds that the tolling provisions in Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-201(c) was applicable to GTLA actions and granted permission to appeal pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 9. On appeal, we hold that the tolling provision does not apply because the statute did not expressly extend it to GTLA actions.

The petitioner, Denny McAbee, pled guilty in the Davidson County Criminal Court to aggravated burglary. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to fourteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a motion to set aside his guilty plea, which the trial court denied. On appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court’s ruling. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Michael R. Malone, pled guilty to reckless endangerment, a Class E felony, and was sentenced to two years in the Department of Correction, to be served consecutively to a prior three-year sentence for which he was on community corrections at the time he committed the present offense. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, David Avery, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner was convicted of aggravated robbery, especially aggravated robbery, reckless endangerment, and attempted second degree murder and was sentenced to an effective term of forty-nine years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he contends that he was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on direct appeal. After reviewing the record, we must conclude that the petitioner failed to establish his claim. Accordingly, the denial of relief is affirmed.

This is a grandparent visitation case, in which Mother appeals the trial court’s award of specific visitation to Appellee grandparents under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-6306. Specifically, Mother argues that the trial court incorrectly determined that she opposed visitation, that she had failed to rebut the presumption of substantial harm under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-6-306(b)(4),and that grandparent visitation was in the children’s best interests. Discerning no error, we affirm.

In case 09-335, the Defendant, Tina Dehart, pled guilty to theft of property valued over $1,000, and the trial court sentenced her to three years to be served on community corrections, but it later granted her judicial diversion. In case 11-622, the Defendant pled guilty to theft of property valued over $500. After her plea, the trial court determined that her new conviction violated the terms of her probationary sentence in case number 09-335. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to three years in case number 09-335 and to two years in case number 11-622. The trial court ordered that the sentences be served consecutively and in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied her request for alternative sentencing. After a thorough review of the record and applicable case law, we conclude that there exists no error in the judgments of the trial court. We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Former owner of condominium unit whose unit was ordered sold after being determined, due to unsanitary conditions and offensive odors, to constitute a nuisance, appeals the trial court’s order permanently enjoining her from acquiring a unit in the condominium. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment.

This appeal involves the termination of the parental rights of a mother and father as to their three children. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services became involved after it was reported that the father sexually abused the parties’ older daughter. Initially, the children were permitted to stay in the mother’s custody under a protection agreement and a restraining order which prohibited the father from any contact with the children. In violation of both, the mother and father fled the state with the children. As a result, the children were taken into protective custody. In the ensuing dependency and neglect proceedings, the children were found to be the victims of severe child abuse by both the father and the mother, and this finding was not appealed. The father eventually pled guilty to attempted aggravated sexual battery of the child. The Department filed this petition to terminate the parental rights of both parents. The trial court found several grounds for termination, including severe child abuse and abandonment by failure to support, and terminated the parental rights of both parents. The mother and father now appeal. We reverse the finding that the father abandoned his children by failure to support, but affirm all other grounds for termination and affirm the termination of the parental rights of both parents.

This appeal in a writ of certiorari action arises from a dispute over the authority of a pension board. The City of Knoxville (“the City”) filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”) challenging an action by the City of Knoxville Pension Board (“the Pension Board”). The City alleged that the Pension Board exceeded its authority in allowing a number of employees (“the Respondents”) to select a new retirement plan option despite the fact that the Respondents already had made their onetime selection for a different and now less attractive retirement plan option. Knoxville voters previously had rejected by referendum an ordinance that would have given the Respondents this opportunity for a new selection. The Pension Board argued that it merely was correcting an inadvertent error that had disadvantaged the Respondents. The Trial Court held that the Pension Board exceeded its authority and reversed the actions of the Pension Board. The Respondents appeal to this Court. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court in its entirety.

Sarah Hurst (“Hurst”) sued Colman S. Hochman (“Hochman”) and Hochman Family Partners, L.P. (“the Partnership”) alleging that Hochman had committed a battery upon her, and seeking damages for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress among other things. After a trial, the Trial Court entered its Final Decree that, inter alia, awarded Hurst damages of $2,500 against Hochman for battery; denied Hurst’s claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, and punitive damages; and dismissed Hurst’s claims against the Partnership. Hurst appeals raising issues regarding whether the Trial Court erred in denying her claim of discrimination under the Fair Housing Act and in dismissing her claims against the Partnership. We affirm.

On September 10, 2009, a Madison County jury convicted the Petitioner, Aaron Benard Barnett, of one count of aggravated burglary and one count of vandalism, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of ten years of incarceration. The Petitioner appealed his jury convictions and his sentence, and this Court affirmed his convictions and sentence. State v. Aaron Benard Barnett, No. W2009-02582-CCA-R3-CD, 2011 WL 1224208 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Mar. 30, 2011), no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that his trial counsel was ineffective. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we conclude there exists no error in the judgment of the post-conviction court. We, therefore, affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

Newt Carter (“the Petitioner”) filed for post-conviction relief, challenging his convictions for aggravated rape and aggravated burglary. As his bases for relief, he alleged several grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and that “newly discovered evidence” existed in the case. After the close of the Petitioner’s proof in an evidentiary hearing, upon motion by the State, the post-conviction court denied relief, and this appeal followed. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that trial counsel (1) failed to account for the Petitioner’s learning disabilities and (2) failed to call Benjamin Jackson as a witness. Based upon the record before us, we are compelled to vacate the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand this action to the Madison County Circuit Court for conclusion of the evidentiary hearing and for the post-conviction court to make factual findings and conclusions at the close of all the proof based on all of the evidence presented at the post-conviction hearing.

This case involves a traffic ticket for speeding received by the Defendant, Joe Clyde Tubwell, in Memphis, Tennessee. The Defendant was found guilty by the Memphis City Court. The Defendant contends that he was denied the right to appeal that decision as an indigent. In Shelby County Circuit Court, he subsequently filed a “Petition for Mandamus or for Order Directing that Indigent Be Allowed to Appeal.” The Circuit Court dismissed this filing. The Defendant now appeals. After review, based on the specific facts of this case, we now dismiss the appeal without prejudice and remand this action to the Shelby County Circuit Court with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing in this matter.

This appeal involves a claim of retaliatory discharge. The plaintiff was employed by the defendant shipping company, working in a job position that required physical labor. The plaintiff seriously injured his back in the course of his employment. As a result, he underwent surgery and took an extended leave of absence. After his leave of absence, the plaintiff returned to his former position with no restrictions. A month later, he suffered another back injury that necessitated another leave of absence. Pursuant to its medical leave policy, the defendant company terminated the plaintiff’s employment. Eight months after his employment was terminated, the plaintiff filed this lawsuit, alleging that he was discharged in retaliation for his workers’ compensation claim. The plaintiff’s employment contract included a contractual six-month limitations period. The defendant company filed a motion for summary judgment based on the six-month contractual limitations period, and also asserting that it was entitled to judgment on the merits based on the undisputed facts. The trial court declined to grant the company’s motion for summary judgment based on the six-month limitation period, but it granted summary judgment in favor of the company on the merits. The plaintiff now appeals. We reverse in part but affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on a different basis than that upon which the trial court relied, holding that the plaintiff employee’s lawsuit is time-barred under the contractual limitations period in the plaintiff’s employment contract.

The defendant, Brenda Woods, was convicted by a Hardeman County jury of three counts of procuring an illegal vote, a Class E felony, and was sentenced by the trial court to concurrent terms of two years for each offense, with credit given for one day’s jail service and the remainder of the time on supervised probation. The defendant was also disqualified from holding public office for the duration of her sentence pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-20-114(a). She raises the following four issues on appeal: (1) whether the prosecutor engaged in misconduct that deprived her of a fundamentally fair trial; (2) whether the trial court erred by overruling her Batson challenge to the prosecutor’s exercise of a peremptory challenge; (3) whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain her convictions; and (4) whether the trial court erred by allowing testimony from an investigator about his telephone conversations with her. Fpllowing our review, we reverse and remand for a new trial.