Court Rulings

The defendant, whose marriage to the plaintiff previously had been dis- solved, appealed to this court from the postjudgment rulings of the trial court modifying his alimony obligation and denying his motion to reassign to a different court the plaintiff's motion for an order seeking reimbursement from him for certain expenses of the parties' children. The defendant also challenged on appeal the trial court's granting of the plaintiff's motion to correct the court's memorandum of decision. The trial court had requested of the parties a waiver of the 120 day deadline mandated in the applicable rule of practice (§ 11-19) to issue a decision on the plaintiff's motion for an order seeking reimbursement. When the defendant did not respond to the request, a status conference was scheduled at which the plaintiff agreed to extend the 120 day deadline but which the defendant did not attend because, he asserted, he went to the incorrect courthouse. The court stated at the status conference that it would proceed with the agreement of counsel. The defendant thereafter sought reassignment of the plaintiff's motion for an order, claiming that the court had failed to render a timely decision under Practice Book § 11-19. The defendant's motion was assigned to a different court, which denied the motion after indicating that the prior court had found that the defendant consented to the extension of time. The prior court then ruled in favor of the plaintiff on her motion for an order. Held: 1. The trial court's finding that the defendant had consented to the prior court's request for an extension of time to rule on the plaintiff's motion for an order was clearly erroneous, the court having been required under Practice Book § 11-19 to reassign the plaintiff's motion to a different judge; the defendant timely filed his motion for reassignment, there was no evidence to support a finding of consent, and, although this court did not condone the defendant's failure to respond to the court's

The Defendant, Ricky Dale Breeden, was convicted by a Union County Criminal Court jury of three counts of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and two counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-522 (2018) (subsequently amended) (rape of a child), 39-13-504 (2018) (aggravated sexual battery). He was sentenced to an effective ninety-five years for the convictions. On appeal, he contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his rape of a child convictions, (2) the State failed to make a proper election of offenses, (3) the trial court erred in denying his motion for expert funds, (4) the court erred by ordering consecutive service. Although we affirm the Defendant's rape of a child convictions, we reverse the Defendant's convictions for aggravated sexual battery and remand the case for a new trial.

This suit was brought under the Tennessee Human Rights Act by two African-American employees against their employer and their union to recover for alleged discrimination that created a hostile work environment. At issue in this appeal is the grant of summary judgment to the union on the basis that it did not cause or attempt to cause the employer to discriminate. Upon our de novo review, we conclude that the evidence presented at the summary judgment stage negated an essential element of the Plaintiffs' claim and thus summary judgment was warranted. Judgment affirmed.

The Defendants, Humberto Morales, Mario Garcia Flores, and Keyona Martina Newell, (collectively "the Defendants") were convicted of aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated burglary, theft of property valued at $1,000 or more, and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery. Mr. Flores also was convicted of possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony and employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. After merging various convictions, the trial court ordered Mr. Morales to serve an effective sentence of forty-eight years, Mr. Flores to serve an effective sentence of thirty years, and Ms. Newell to serve an effective sentence of twenty-four years. On appeal, the Defendants, either collectively or individually, challenge: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the convictions (2) the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress based upon the constitutionality of the stop of the vehicle in which some of the perpetrators fled the scene (3) the trial court's denial of a continuance based upon the State's late disclosure of discovery materials (4) the trial court's decision to admit expert testimony of evidence extracted from the perpetrators' cell phones (5) the trial court's denial of Mr. Morales's motion for mistrial after Ms. Newell's counsel questioned a witness about evidence that the trial court previously ruled to be inadmissible (6) the trial court's failure to issue an accomplice instruction and (7) the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

After a nursing home resident died, her daughter filed a wrongful death action against the facility. The nursing home moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement signed by the daughter when her mother was admitted to the facility. The daughter claimed that she lacked authority to sign the arbitration agreement for her mother. The trial court agreed and denied the motion to compel. On appeal, we conclude that the Federal Arbitration Act required the trial court to resolve the issue of whether an agreement to arbitrate had been formed. Because the nursing home failed to establish an agreement to arbitrate had been formed with the patient, we affirm.