Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts

This appeal involves a claim under Tennessee’s False Claims Act. A local vendor of termite control services became suspicious that two of its competitors had overbilled Knox County for termite control services provided to Knox County’s public schools. After confirming its suspicions by obtaining and reviewing public records and by hiring an attorney and private investigator, the vendor presented a detailed report of its findings to county officials who were unaware that the overbilling had occurred. When the County delayed taking remedial action, the vendor filed a qui tam suit authorized by Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-104(c) (2005) in the Chancery Court for Knox County. The County joined the vendor’s lawsuit and eventually settled with both of the companies named as defendants in the vendor’s lawsuit. When the qui tam plaintiff sought a share of the County’s settlement with one of the defendants, the County asserted that the qui tam plaintiff was not eligible to receive any of the settlement proceeds. The trial court heard the matter without a jury and held that the qui tam plaintiff was an “original source” for the purpose of Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-104(d)(3)(A) and, therefore, was entitled to receive 28% of the settlement proceeds or $71,546.46. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s conclusion that the qui tam plaintiff was entitled to recover 28% of the value of the settlement proceeds but remanded the case for the purpose of redetermining the value of the settlement proceeds. In re Knox Cnty., Tenn. ex rel. Envtl. Termite & Pest Control, Inc., No. E2007-02827-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 2144478 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 20, 2009). The County filed a Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application on the sole issue of whether the qui tam plaintiff is eligible to recover a portion of the settlement proceeds. We affirm the decisions of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals that the qui tam plaintiff is an “original source” and, therefore, is eligible to receive a portion of the proceeds from the County’s settlement with one of the vendors.

The plaintiffs, former employees of the Chattanooga Housing Authority (“CHA”), brought retaliatory discharge actions against the CHA and the Chief of the CHA Public Safety Department, pursuant to the Tennessee Public Protection Act, Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-1-304 (2008 & Supp. 2010), and the Tennessee Human Rights Act (“THRA”), Tennessee Code Annotated section 4-21-301 (2005). The trial court granted the defendants summary judgment on all claims. On appeal, the Court of Appeals vacated summary judgment on the THRA claim, finding genuine issues of material fact, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment in all other respects. We affirm the grant of summary judgment on the Tennessee Public Protection Act claims because the undisputed facts establish that the plaintiffs cannot prove the essential element of an exclusive causal relationship between the plaintiffs’ whistleblowing activity and their discharge, as required by the statute. We also affirm the Court of Appeals’ ruling vacating summary judgment in defendants’ favor on the THRA claims because there are genuine issues of disputed fact making summary judgment improper.

The plaintiff obtained a judgment against the defendant in the general sessions court. The defendant appealed to the circuit court. In the circuit court, the plaintiff amended his complaint to add an additional plaintiff and an additional cause of action and to seek additional damages. Shortly before trial, the defendant filed a notice dismissing her appeal. The circuit court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the general sessions court pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-5-107 (2000). We hold that the circuit court properly dismissed the defendant’s appeal and affirmed the general sessions judgment. To preserve the plaintiff’s original cause of action after such dismissal, the plaintiff must perfect an appeal to the circuit court as prescribed by Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-5-108 (2000). We therefore affirm the judgment of the lower courts.

In separate trials, the petitioner was convicted of aggravated rape for an incident occurring in March of 1980 and of aggravated rape and robbery by use of a deadly weapon for an incident occurring in May of the same year. In 2007, the petitioner sought to have deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”) analysis performed on the remaining evidence pursuant to the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001, arguing that exculpatory results would create a reasonable probability that he would not have been prosecuted or convicted on either charge. The petitioner contended that he could conclusively establish his innocence if the DNA profile developed from the evidence was uploaded into a DNA database and matched another profile in the system. The post-conviction court denied relief. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding that DNA analysis was limited to a comparison between the petitioner’s DNA and that collected as a part of the evidence in the case. We granted the petitioner’s application for permission to appeal to determine (1) whether the General Assembly intended to permit petitioners proceeding under the Act to use DNA database matches to satisfy their burden and (2) whether the Court of Criminal Appeals’ interpretation of the statute served to preclude the development of scientific evidence supportive of actual innocence. We hold that the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act permits access to a DNA database if a positive match between the crime scene DNA and a profile contained within the database would create a reasonable probability that a petitioner would not have been prosecuted or convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained or would have rendered a more favorable verdict or sentence if the results had been previously available. Because the criteria for ordering DNA analysis under the Act are established, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to the post-conviction court for entry of an order granting DNA analysis.

The defendant was convicted at trial of three offenses: aggravated burglary; theft of $10,000 or more but less than $60,000; and theft of $1,000 or more but less than $10,000. The trial court classified the defendant as a career offender, imposed sentences of fifteen, fifteen, and twelve years respectively, and ordered the twelve-year sentence to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of twenty-seven years. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals determined as follows: (1) that the conviction for theft of $1,000 or more but less than $10,000 violated the prohibition against double jeopardy; (2) that, if properly convicted of the remaining offenses, the defendant qualified as a persistent rather than a career offender; and (3) that, in any event, the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions for aggravated burglary and theft of $10,000 or more but less than $60,000. While conceding that the Court of Criminal Appeals had properly set aside the lesser theft conviction and, in consequence, correctly determined that the defendant qualified as a persistent rather than a career offender, the State applied for permission to appeal, arguing that the other two convictions should be reinstated. This Court, applying the standard of review established in State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011), holds that the evidence presented at trial warrants reinstatement of the convictions. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is, therefore, affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded for resentencing in light of this opinion.

In this direct appeal of a judicial disciplinary proceeding, we are asked to review the Court of the Judiciary’s decision that Cocke County General Sessions Court Judge John A. Bell violated various canons of the Tennessee Code of Judicial Conduct, resulting in sanctions that included a ninety-day suspension. The Court of the Judiciary found that Judge Bell violated the Code by taking nine months to decide the complainant’s personal injury action, re-hearing the case without disclosing to a new party that he had previously made findings against the new party as to liability and damages, and contacting through an attorney the self-represented complainant while the complainant’s case was still pending before him in General Sessions Court. We affirm the code violations with respect to the delay and the ex parte communication and affirm the sanctions.

Two municipalities sought to annex the same territory outside the urban growth boundaries for both municipalities set forth in the county’s growth plan. One municipality attempted to annex territory that was not within its urban growth boundary by proposing an amendment to the county growth plan and enacting an ordinance annexing the territory. A second municipality annexed the same territory by an annexation referendum pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated sections 6-51-104 to -105 and 6-58-111(d)(2). We granted permission to appeal in this case to address the application of Tennessee Code Annotated sections 6-58-101 to -116 to these municipalities’ annexation efforts. After considering the related statutes, we hold that Tennessee Code Annotated section 6-58-111 requires an amendment to the county growth plan for a municipality to effect an annexation of territory beyond its urban growth boundary by ordinance. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the chancery court’s order dismissing the case.

In this products liability case, a widow sought compensation for the death of her husband from mesothelioma allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at his workplace. She sued the company that sold products containing asbestos to her husband’s employer. She based her claim on strict liability and alleged that the seller sold defective products and failed to warn her husband of the products’ health risks. The jury found that the seller was at fault, but that her husband’s employer was the sole cause of his injury and awarded her nothing. The widow appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial based on erroneous jury instructions that more probably than not affected the judgment of the jury. On review, we hold that the seller was subject to suit in strict liability, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-28-106(b) (2000), because none of the products’ manufacturers were subject to service of process. Further, we hold that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that the seller could not be held liable for failure to warn if the jury found that the consumer, identified as the employer, was already aware of any danger in connection with the use of the products or if the employer had been given adequate warnings. This jury instruction was erroneous for two reasons. First, it applied the learned intermediary doctrine, which the courts of this state have limited to medical products and pharmaceuticals. Second, the jury instruction misidentified the consumer as the employer, when the consumer who was required to be warned was the employee, Mr. Nye. Because the error more probably than not affected the judgment of the jury, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

This appeal involves the application of the mandatory joinder provisions in Tenn. R. Crim. P. 8(a)(1)(A). The defendant was charged with committing an aggravated robbery and was separately charged with initiating a false police report twelve hours later regarding his automobile that was somehow connected with the robbery. Approximately one month after he was indicted by a Shelby County grand jury for initiating a false police report, the defendant pleaded guilty to attempting to initiate a false police report. Thereafter, a Shelby County grand jury indicted the defendant for aggravated robbery. The defendant filed a motion in the Criminal Court for Shelby County seeking to dismiss the aggravated robbery indictment in accordance with Tenn. R. Crim. P. 8(a)(2) because the State had already prosecuted him separately on the initiation of a false police report charge. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion, and the State appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals. A divided panel of the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. State v. Johnson, No. W2008-01593-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 4263653 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 30, 2009). We granted the State’s application for permission to appeal to address the application of Tenn. R. Crim. P. 8(a)(1)(A) to offenses arising from the same criminal episode. We have determined that the two offenses involved in this case were not part of the same criminal episode and, therefore, that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred by relying on Tenn. R. Crim P. 8(a)(2) to dismiss the aggravated robbery charge.