Memphis Publ'g Co. v. City of Memphis, 871 S.W.2d 681, 689 (Tenn. 1994)(citing Abernathy v. Whitley, 838 S.W.2d 211 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992) ). Because the award of attorneys' fees is within the discretion of the trial court, we review the trial court's actions for an abuse of discretion. Konvalinka v. Chattanooga–Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth., 358 S.W.3d 213, 226 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Henderson v. City of Chattanooga, 133 S.W.3d 192, 215–16 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) ). As is evident from the statute, the Act provides that attorneys' fees may be awarded only if the trial court finds that the governmental entity, or agent thereof, acted willfully in refusing to disclose public records.
1994) (citing Abernathy v. Whitley, 838 S.W.2d 211 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992)). Because the award of attorneys' fees is within the discretion of the trial court, we review the trial court's actions for an abuse of discretion. Konvalinka v. Chattanooga–Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth., 358 S.W.3d 213, 226 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Henderson v. City of Chattanooga, 133 S.W.3d 192, 215–16 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003)).As is evident from the statute, the Act provides that attorneys' fees may be awarded only if the trial court finds that the governmental entity, or agent thereof, acted willfully in refusing to disclose public records.
Even to the extent that Mr. Vazeen could have done so given the law of the case, Mr. Vazeen filed no motion to amend his complaint following the remand in Vazeen IIto raise previously unpleaded claims. Cf. Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth., 358 S.W.3d 213, 224 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) ("If a party could avoid res judicata or application of law of the case by simply thinking up new claims or defenses and then procuring evidence in support of those claims or defenses, we are not sure either doctrine would ever be applicable."). C.
1994) (citing Abernathy v. Whitley, 838 S.W.2d 211 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992)). As the award of attorneys' fees is within the discretion of the trial court, we review it for an abuse of discretion. Konvalinka v. Chattanooga–Hamilton County Hosp. Auth., 358 S.W.3d 213, 226 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Henderson v. City of Chattanooga, 133 S.W.3d 192, 215–16 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003)). A trial court abuses its discretion only when it applies an incorrect legal standard, or reaches a decision which is against logic or reasoning that causes an injustice to the party complaining.
1994)(citing Abernathy v. Whitley,838 S.W.2d 211 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992)). As the award of attorneys' fees is within the discretion of the trial court, we review it for an abuse of discretion. Konvalinka v. Chattanooga–Hamilton County Hosp. Auth.,358 S.W.3d 213, 226 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010)(citing Henderson v. City of Chattanooga,133 S.W.3d 192, 215–16 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003)). A trial court abuses its discretion only when it applies an incorrect legal standard, or reaches a decision which is against logic or reasoning that causes an injustice to the party complaining.