Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1915–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Tennessee courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bervoets v. Harde Ralls Pontiac-Olds, Inc.green2 sentences1998G.E. responds that Tennessee does permit a contribution claim "in an appropriate case." G.E. argues that this is an "appropriate case" and seeks to have fault assessed in accordance with the principles set forth in McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992). 3 ANALYSIS McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992), did not "completely abolish the remedy of contribution." Bervoets v. Harde Ralls Pontiac-Olds, Inc., 891 S.W.2d 905, 907 (Tenn. 1994). 1998Contribution may still be viable in the following limited circumstances: 1. cases in which prior to McIntyre the cause of action arose, the suit was filed and the parties had made irrevocable litigation decisions based on pre-McIntyre law, see Owens v. Truckstops of America, 915 S.W.2d 420 (Tenn. 1996); Bervoets v. Harde Ralls Pontiac-Olds, Inc., 891 S.W.2d 905 (Tenn. 1994); 2. cases in which joint and several liability continues to apply under doctrines such as the family purpose doctrine, cases in which torfeasors act in concert or collectively with one another, cases in which the doctrine o | 2 | 2 |
Sherrill v. Sherrillgreen1 sentence2019Keyt [v. Keyt], 244 S.W.3d [321,] 329 [Tenn. 2007] (citing Sherrill v. Sherrill, 831 S.W.2d 293, 295 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992)). | 1 | 1 |
Owens v. Truckstops of Americagreen2 sentences1998Contribution may still be viable in the following limited circumstances: 1. cases in which prior to McIntyre the cause of action arose, the suit was filed and the parties had made irrevocable litigation decisions based on pre-McIntyre law, see Owens v. Truckstops of America, 915 S.W.2d 420 (Tenn. 1996); Bervoets v. Harde Ralls Pontiac-Olds, Inc., 891 S.W.2d 905 (Tenn. 1994); 2. cases in which joint and several liability continues to apply under doctrines such as the family purpose doctrine, cases in which torfeasors act in concert or collectively with one another, cases in which the doctrine o 1998Contribution may still be viable in the following limited circumstances: 1. cases in which prior to McIntyre the cause of action arose, the suit was filed and the parties had made irrevocable litigation decisions based on pre-McIntyre law, see Owens v. Truckstops of America, 915 S.W.2d 420 (Tenn. 1996); Bervoets v. Harde Ralls Pontiac-Olds, Inc., 891 S.W.2d 905 (Tenn. 1994); 2. cases in which joint and several liability continues to apply under doctrines such as the family purpose doctrine, cases in which torfeasors act in concert or collectively with one another, cases in which the doctrine o | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McIntyre v. Balentine
green
2 sentences1998G.E. responds that Tennessee does permit a contribution claim "in an appropriate case." G.E. argues that this is an "appropriate case" and seeks to have fault assessed in accordance with the principles set forth in McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992). 3 ANALYSIS McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992), did not "completely abolish the remedy of contribution." Bervoets v. Harde Ralls Pontiac-Olds, Inc., 891 S.W.2d 905, 907 (Tenn. 1994). 1998G.E. responds that Tennessee does permit a contribution claim "in an appropriate case." G.E. argues that this is an "appropriate case" and seeks to have fault assessed in accordance with the principles set forth in McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992). 3 ANALYSIS McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992), did not "completely abolish the remedy of contribution." Bervoets v. Harde Ralls Pontiac-Olds, Inc., 891 S.W.2d 905, 907 (Tenn. 1994). | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Mahaffey v. Mahaffey
green
1 sentence2001Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-121 (b)(1)(B); Mahaffey, 775 S.W.2d at 623 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Block
green
1 sentence1998Contribution may still be viable in the following limited circumstances: 1. cases in which prior to McIntyre the cause of action arose, the suit was filed and the parties had made irrevocable litigation decisions based on pre-McIntyre law, see Owens v. Truckstops of America, 915 S.W.2d 420 (Tenn. 1996); Bervoets v. Harde Ralls Pontiac-Olds, Inc., 891 S.W.2d 905 (Tenn. 1994); 2. cases in which joint and several liability continues to apply under doctrines such as the family purpose doctrine, cases in which torfeasors act in concert or collectively with one another, cases in which the doctrine o | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Camper v. Minor
green
1 sentence1998Contribution may still be viable in the following limited circumstances: 1. cases in which prior to McIntyre the cause of action arose, the suit was filed and the parties had made irrevocable litigation decisions based on pre-McIntyre law, see Owens v. Truckstops of America, 915 S.W.2d 420 (Tenn. 1996); Bervoets v. Harde Ralls Pontiac-Olds, Inc., 891 S.W.2d 905 (Tenn. 1994); 2. cases in which joint and several liability continues to apply under doctrines such as the family purpose doctrine, cases in which torfeasors act in concert or collectively with one another, cases in which the doctrine o | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Hartford Fire Ins. v. Williams
neutral
1 sentence1915The cases of Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Williams, 11 C. | 1 | 1915–1915 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.