Court Rulings

This is an interlocutory appeal under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. We affirm the trial court's denial of the Appellant's recusal motion.

The Defendant, Kevin Wayne Newson, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, attempted first degree premeditated murder, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and convicted felon in possession of a firearm. The trial court merged the first degree murder convictions and sentenced the Defendant to an effective term of life plus sixty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court's sentencing determinations, the trial court's denial of the Defendant's request that the jury be instructed on aggravated assault resulting in death as a lesser-included offense of premeditated murder, the trial court's grant of the State's request that language regarding the Defendant's duty to retreat be included in the jury instruction on self-defense, and various other rulings of the trial court. With respect to the self-defense instruction, the Defendant argues that duty to retreat language was prejudicially erroneous because the only criminal activity in which the Defendant was involved at the time of the shooting, i.e, being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, had no nexus to the events that gave rise to the shooting. Based on our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Timothy M. Dawson, pled guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia before he was found guilty of simple possession of methamphetamine by a jury. The Defendant was also convicted of theft in two separate, unrelated cases. Following a consolidated sentencing hearing on all three cases, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to consecutive terms of eleven months and twenty-nine days for his two Class A misdemeanor convictions in this case, finding that the Defendant was a professional criminal and that he had an extensive criminal history. The Defendant appeals, challenging the trial court's consecutive sentencing determination based upon aspects of the consolidated nature of the sentencing hearing. Following our review, we affirm.

The defendant Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities appealed from the judgment of the trial court vacating the damages award granted by its human rights referee to the defendant employee, P, for garden- variety emotional distress in a sexual harassment complaint against the plaintiff employer. During a public hearing before the referee, P testified that the harassing and discriminatory conduct of M, who was her direct supervisor while she was employed by the plaintiff, made her feel uncom- fortable, stressed, and nervous and caused her to become depressed. On direct examination, she was not asked about, and did not testify regarding, any medical treatment that she received relating to her depres- sion. On cross-examination, however, the plaintiff's counsel questioned P regarding the professional treatment that she sought as a result of the emotional distress M had caused and asked why she had not pro- duced any medical records relating to such treatment. The plaintiff's counsel continued this line of questioning even after the referee ruled that P was not required to produce any medical records because she was claiming only garden-variety emotional distress. With the exception of her testimony in response to the questions of the plaintiff's counsel, P did not offer any evidence regarding her medical treatment. The referee found in favor of P and awarded her back pay and damages for garden- variety emotional distress. The plaintiff appealed to the trial court, which vacated the referee's damages award, and the commission appealed to this court. Held that the trial court erred when it vacated the referee's damages award because it incorrectly concluded that the plaintiff was prejudiced by P's failure to disclose her medical records: the referee did not abuse her discretion when she awarded P damages for garden- variety emotional distress because our Supreme Court in Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert (343 Conn. 90) made clear that, where a claimant limits h

This appeal arises from an award of attorneys' fees. At issue is whether the trial court, when determining an award of fees in a workers' compensation death case, must consider the reasonableness of the attorneys' fees or whether the trial court must deem the fees reasonable if the fees do not exceed twenty percent of the award. Employer also takes issue with a lump sum award of attorneys' fees. We affirm the trial court's award of $46,457.10 in lump sum.

Three members of a school board filed this lawsuit after the school board passed a resolution approving a severance agreement with the director of schools that contained a non-disparagement clause preventing the individual school board members from expressing even truthful criticism of the director of schools. The plaintiff board members named as defendants the school board and the director of schools. They sought a declaratory judgment that the non-disparagement clause violated their free speech rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I Section 19 of the Tennessee Constitution, was unconstitutionally overbroad, and was unenforceable as against the public policy of the State of Tennessee. They also sought a permanent injunction preventing enforcement of the non-disparagement clause and an award of their attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on numerous alternative grounds. The defendants filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, lack of standing, and lack of ripeness. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order denying the defendants' motions to dismiss and granting the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The trial court found that the non-disparagement clause was unenforceable and unconstitutional on several grounds. It permanently enjoined enforcement of the clause and awarded the plaintiffs their attorney fees. The defendants appeal, arguing that the case should have been dismissed for lack of standing and ripeness. We affirm and remand for further proceedings.