Court Rulings

non-compete agreement - home care provider - default judgment - injunction - damages - show cause - contempt - hearing - abuse of discretion

This is an appeal of the termination of a tenured teacher's employment pursuant to the Tenure Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 49-5-501 and -515. The Cheatham County Director of Schools initiated these proceedings by filing a notice of charges recommending the termination of the tenured teacher on the grounds of insubordination and inefficiency. Following an administrative hearing, the hearing officer recommended dismissal. When the Cheatham County Board of Education voted to sustain the hearing officer's decision and to dismiss the tenured teacher, the teacher sought review of the decision in the chancery court. The chancery court affirmed her dismissal, and this appeal followed. We have determined that the evidence preponderates against the chancery court's factual findings and its conclusion that the teacher was insubordinate and inefficient as those terms are defined in the Tenure Act. We have also determined that the record fails to establish any basis for the dismissal of a tenured teacher. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the chancery court and remand with instructions for the chancery court to determine the relief to which the tenured teacher is entitled for being dismissed without justification. This includes whether the teacher is entitled to back pay pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-511(a)(3) and, if so, in what amount.

Negligence independent contractor duty foreseeability summary judgment.

Judgment affirmed. Because appellant failed to challenge the arbitrator's decision under R.C. Chapter 2711 in the trial court, this court was unable to review appellant's assignments of error. Appellant failed to demonstrate that the trial court's entry sustaining the joint motion for arbitration modified the parties' arbitration agreement.

R.C. 4113.52, whistleblower, Civ.R. 12(B)(6), failure to state a claim, motion to dismiss, wrongful discharge in violation of public policy

Trial court did not err by finding that employee's claim for workers' compensation should be denied. The employee failed to prove that the condition that he now complains is separate and distinct from another claim that was already allowed.

Mandamus-Writ sought to compel Ohio Highway Patrol Retirement System Board to vacate its termination of his disability-retirement benefits-Court of appeals' abused its discretion in granting limited writ ordering the board to conduct a physical-capacity evaluation-Board had no duty to conduct physical-capacity evaluation prior to terminating disability-retirement benefits-Court of appeals' judgment reversed and writ denied.

LABOR UNIONS - R.C. 4117.03(A)(5) App.R. 4(B)(5) pursuant to 11th Dist. Loc.R. 3(D)(2) an appellant must attach a copy of the judgment entry appealed to the notice of appeal once an employee subject to a collective bargaining agreement authorizes his or her union to pursue a grievance, the cause of action belongs to the union and the employee lacks standing to prosecute the case R.C. 4117.10(A).

CALCANO DE MILLAN, 26 I&N Dec. 904 (BIA 2017) For purposes of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587, and section 204(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I) (2012), a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident petitioner has been "convicted" of an offense where either a formal judgment of guilt has been entered by a court or, if adjudication of guilt has been withheld, where (1) a plea, finding, or admission of facts established the petitioner's guilt and (2) a judge ordered some form of punishment, penalty, or restraint on his or her liberty.

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS - DRAM SHOP/R.C. 4399.18: Where there was no evidence that a liquor permit holder or an employee of the liquor permit holder had knowingly sold an alcoholic beverage to a patron who, after leaving the liquor holder's premises, drove in an intoxicated condition and caused the death of another, and where there was no evidence that, even if an alcoholic beverage had been sold to the patron, the liquor permit holder or an employee had done so with actual knowledge that the patron was noticeably intoxicated, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to the defendant liquor permit holder on the plaintiff's wrongful-death dram-shop-liability action.

The parties in this case are before the Supreme Court on cross-appeals from a Superior Court judgment following a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Matthieu W. Yangambi (plaintiff), on a single claim of employment discrimination based on national origin. The defendants, the Providence School Board and the City of Providence (defendants), have challenged the Superior Court justice's jury instructions on several grounds, and argue that the Superior Court justice: (1) applied an incorrect law concerning evidentiary presumptions in an employment discrimination case (2) improperly weighed the evidence and (3) invaded the province of the jury. The defendants also contend that the Superior Court justice erred when she vacated the jury's finding that the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in full. The Court declared that, although defendants did not articulate a nondiscriminatory reason for their adverse employment decision, they presented some evidence sufficient to overcome judgment as a matter of law. In regard to the jury instructions, the Court held that Superior Court justice did not err in applying the law of evidentiary presumptions or invade the province of the jury, because the defendants did not satisfy their burden of production. Finally, the Court was of the opinion that the trial justice did not erroneously vacate the jury's finding on mitigation of damages, as the plaintiff applied for many administrative positions within Providence and was not required to seek employment outside of that municipality.

Civ.R. 56/summary judgment motion for extension discovery. The trial court's grant of summary judgment for appellee as to appellant's employer intentional tort claim was proper. The record does not show any evidence to support the claim of intentional tort. The trial court erred in denying appellant's motion for summary judgment where a genuine issue of material fact existed as to appellee's duty to indemnify under appellant's negligence and product liability claims. Additionally, appellant should have been permitted to conduct further discovery.

Open and obvious doctrine did not apply to inmate's use of a device to control window opening. Case remanded for a determination as to comparative negligence.

Magistrate's Decision adopted. The magistrate properly stated the pertinent facts and applied the appropriate law to find that relator had not demonstrated the Industrial Commission abused its discretion in calculating his average weekly wage or in denying his request for reconsideration. Writ of mandamus denied.

Employees Engineering Sanitary grievance administrative appeal administrative remedy motion to dismiss summary judgment exhaust early retirement exhaustion of administrative remedies county administrator. Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by not filing an administrative appeal from the county administrator's decision. Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant.

Employee's writ of mandamus denied.