APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Plaintiff filed this action against defendant after she slipped and fell in defendant’s bathroom. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that plaintiff could not establish the elements of her claim. The trial court found that plaintiff could not establish the elements of a premises liability claim and granted summary judgment in favor of defendant. Finding that defendant did not meet its burden at the summary judgment stage, we reverse.

This appeal arises from Appellant’s action to enforce a restrictive covenant in a residential subdivision. The matter was heard by the trial court in a non-jury trial on August 12, 2008. Before Appellant completed its presentation of evidence, the trial court sua sponte ended the proceeding and entered an order of involuntary dismissal. Finding that the trial court erred in dismissing the case before Appellant completed its presentation of evidence, we reverse.

The Appellant appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post conviction relief. The Appellant filed his petition outside the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The plaintiff appeals the summary dismissal of his legal malpractice action against his former attorney. In the Complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants, the attorney and his law firm, represented themselves to be “competent in securities law related matters,” and that the defendants breached their duty by failing to utilize the requisite skill and competency while representing him in a claim against a brokerage firm in arbitration before a panel of the National Association of Securities Dealers. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which was supported by the affidavit of the attorney who represented the plaintiff in arbitration. The trial court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff had failed to present evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding damages and causation. We have determined that the defendants’ motion and supporting affidavit failed to either affirmatively negate an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim or establish that the plaintiff cannot prove an essential element of his claim at trial. Having failed to shift the burden of production to the plaintiff, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment should have been denied without consideration of the sufficiency of the affidavits of the plaintiff’s expert witnesses. Accordingly, we reverse the grant of summary judgment.

This appeal involves a breach of an employment agreement. The plaintiff company recruits health care workers from the Philippines to come to the United States to work for its clients. The company recruited the defendant nurse by using written recruitment materials. The nurse signed an employment agreement that differed from the recruitment materials in that one of the benefits listed as “free” in the recruitment materials was not free. Approximately one year into the nurse’s threeyear term of employment, the nurse resigned. When notified of the nurse’s intent to resign, the company’s management threatened to report the nurse to immigration officials. Despite the threats, the nurse left the employ of the company. The company then filed the instant lawsuit against the nurse, asserting breach of contract. In his answer, the nurse asserted, inter alia, that the employment agreement violated public policy and was unenforceable because the company’s threats constituted involuntary servitude. Although unconscionability was not pled, the nurse was permitted to assert the defense at trial. The trial was bifurcated, with the issue of damages reserved. After the trial, the trial court held that the company’s threats constituted involuntary servitude, and that the employment agreement was unenforceable because it was unconscionable and contrary to public policy. The trial court also, sua sponte, enjoined the company in the future from using recruitment materials that differed from the employment agreements and from threatening to report employees to immigration officials. The company appeals. We reverse the holding that the employment agreement is unenforceable because unconscionability was never pled, the employment agreement is not unconscionable, and the agreement is not contrary to public policy. We vacate the injunctive relief as to the recruitment materials and affirm as to the remaining injunctive relief. The cause is remanded for consideration of the plaintiff company’s damage claim and the defendant nurse’s counterclaims.

The employee filed a workers' compensation complaint against his employer for hearing loss and tinnitus, injuries which he claimed had occurred gradually over his nearly four years of working as a truck driver. Shortly before trial, the employee voluntarily dismissed his tinnitus claim but proceeded with his hearing loss claim. The trial court awarded the employee compensation for permanent partial hearing loss and the Employer appealed. Upon referral, the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel, sitting in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3), affirms.

The defendant, James Earl McGriggs, was convicted of aggravated rape, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary, and aggravated robbery and was sentenced, respectively, to twenty-five years, ten years, three years, and eight years. The trial court ordered that the aggravated rape sentence be served consecutively to the aggravated kidnapping sentence, with all other to be served concurrently, for an effective sentence of thirty-five years. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the convictions. Following our review, we affirm  the judgments.

The defendant was originally indicted for driving under the influence, second offense. More than one year after the arrest, the grand jury returned a second indictment, charging the defendant with driving under the influence, fourth offense, a Class E felony. The State filed a nolle prosequi as to the first indictment and, upon motion by the defendant, the trial court granted an order to expunge these records. At trial, the defendant was convicted of driving under the influence, third offense, a misdemeanor. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. This Court granted review in order to determine whether the one-year statute of limitations applicable to misdemeanors barred the prosecution. Because the trial court properly took judicial notice of the pendency of the first indictment at the time of the second, the statute of limitations, regardless of the efficacy of the order of expunction, was tolled and the prosecution was timely. The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

This is a personal injury suit arising out of an automobile accident. Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s dismissal of her punitive damages claim, as well as its exclusion of evidence regarding Defendant’s underage consumption of alcohol prior to the accident and leaving the scene of the accident. Because Plaintiff has failed to show a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding Defendant’s intoxication, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s punitive damages claim. Because liability has been stipulated in this matter, and the punitive damages claim properly dismissed, we find Defendant’s underage consumption of alcohol and leaving the scene of the accident irrelevant. Thus, we affirm the exclusion of such evidence.

The Defendant, Deonte McBee, appeals from his convictions of first degree felony murder in the perpetration of robbery; especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony; and four counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. He was sentenced to life for the murder conviction, to twenty-five years as a violent offender for the especially aggravated robbery conviction, and to twelve years as a Range I offender for each of the aggravated robbery convictions. The aggravated robbery convictions were imposed consecutively to each other and to the murder conviction, and the effective sentence is life plus forty-eight years. In this appeal, the Defendant claims (1) that there was insufficient proof to support the felony murder conviction, (2) that the trial court erred in instructing the jury to consider the murder offense and its lesser included offenses in sequential order, and (3) that the trial court erred in giving a criminal responsibility instruction. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Sullivan County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Donald Edward Lynch, of two counts of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, two counts of aggravated sexual battery, and six counts of rape of a child. He challenges his convictions, arguing that the video recording used in his conviction was discovered through an illegal search and seizure. He also challenges the legal sufficiency of the convicting evidence. We discern error in the judgments for Counts eight through 10 of rape of a child and remand for correction of clerical error. In all other respects, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

This case involves issues arising out of the parties’ divorce. Prior to the parties’ marriage, both Husband and Wife owned separate residences. In its property division, the trial court found that during the parties’ marriage, Husband’s home increased in value by $61,700.00, and the court awarded each party one-half of the appreciation, or $30,850.00. The trial court found Wife’s home to be her sole and separate property, as the value of her home decreased during the marriage. Finally, the trial court awarded Wife $3,000.00 in attorney fees to be paid by Husband. On appeal, Husband contends that Wife was entitled only to $9,000.00 of the increased value of Husband’s home–onehalf of the value of an addition made to the home during the marriage. Husband further claims that the trial court erred in failing to offset Wife’s award for debts paid on her home during the marriage, and in its award of attorney fees. We reverse the trial court’s award to Wife, and we affirm both the trial court’s award of attorney fees to Wife, and its finding that Wife’s home did not increase in value during the parties’ marriage such that Husband could recover a share of such increase.

Defendant landowners appeal the trial court’s judgment finding that they had dedicated a roadway to public use by implication, and ordering the parties to widen the roadway and move utility lines. We dismiss for lack of a final judgment.

The petitioner, George Hampton, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to properly investigate and prepare the case for trial. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

This case involves the validity of transfers of property and money from a mother to her daughter and son-in-law. The trial court determined that there was a confidential relationship between the mother and her daughter and that the defendants failed to overcome the presumption of undue influence. We affirm the trial court in all respects.

We accepted the following question of law certified by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee: Does Tennessee law recognize an exception to the economic loss doctrine under which recovery in tort is possible for damage to the defective product itself when the defect renders the product unreasonably dangerous and causes the damage by means of a sudden, calamitous event? We answer this question in the negative.

The petitioner, Wadie Holifield, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Tipton County Circuit Court. The petitioner was convicted of one count of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, and sentenced to eighteen years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he raises the single issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, specifically arguing that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to: 1) investigate his mental health and his claim of impotence as possible defenses; 2) ensure an untainted jury by requesting “the Rule” prior to voir dire; 3) effectively preclude introduction or properly cross-examine a witness following testimony about the petitioner’s prior drug habit; and 4) effectively advise the petitioner. As an initial argument, the State contends that the petitioner has waived review based upon an untimely notice of appeal. We agree that the notice was not timely filed, but, in the interest of justice, we elect to review the petitioner’s issue. Following review of the record, we find no error and affirm the denial of relief.

The petitioner, Joe Tyree, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner submitted a guilty plea to one count of violation of the sex offender registry. On appeal, he contends that: defense counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel; his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered; and the post-conviction court failed to comply with the statute that requires the court to set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to each issue. After careful review, we conclude no reversible error exists and affirm the judgment from the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Marktrail Lee, was convicted of aggravated child abuse and aggravated child abuse by neglect. The trial court merged the two convictions and sentenced the defendant as a Range I offender to twenty-three years at 100 percent. On appeal, the defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the court erred in sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner sought to withdraw a waiver he had signed as a prisoner. On a summary judgment motion by defendants, the Trial Court held that if the waiver was withdrawn, petitioner would serve more time and granted the motion. On appeal, we affirm the grant of summary judgment.

The trial court awarded summary judgment to Defendant physician in this medical malpractice action. We dismiss the appeal for failure to appeal a final judgment.

The Petitioner, Robert Cummins, appeals the denial of habeas corpus relief by the Circuit Court for Bledsoe County. The Petitioner pled guilty to second degree murder, a Class A felony, and received a thirty-year sentence as a Range II, multiple offender to be served at one hundred percent. On appeal, he contends the trial court erred in dismissing the petition. He claims that an illegal sentence is a proper ground to allege in a habeas corpus petition, that his guilty plea was unknowingly and involuntarily entered, that his sentence is illegal because it does not conform to Tennessee Code Annotated sections 40-35-112(a)(1) (2006) and 40-35-501(i)(1), (2)(B) (2006), and that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel should have known the sentence was illegal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Shelby County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Darnell Hubbard, of the first-degree premeditated murder of his wife, and he was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of his prior acts of violence against the victim. He also challenges the trial court’s admission of evidence relating to an ex parte order of protection that the victim obtained against him and other statements the victim made to her son and police. We conclude that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay statements from the victim in violation of the appellant’s confrontation rights. However, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the appellant’s guilt, the errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we affirm the appellant’s conviction.

We granted permission to appeal in this case to address the circumstances under which the identity of a confidential informant must be disclosed pre-trial to a criminal defendant. Defendants Brandon Keith Ostein and Teresa Gale Foxx were arrested and charged with drug offenses after police officers executed a search warrant at Foxx’s apartment. The affidavit in support of the search warrant referred to information provided by a confidential informant. Ostein and Foxx filed  motions for disclosure of the informant’s identity. After a hearing, the trial court concluded that the confidential informant was a material witness and ordered disclosure. The State sought and obtained an interlocutory appeal, and the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the trial court. Ostein and Foxx sought permission to appeal, which we granted. Upon our close review of the limited record before us, we hold that Ostein and Foxx have failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the confidential informant is a material witness or otherwise important to their defense. The trial court ordered disclosure based on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, resulting in reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.