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 3 courts 1922–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brendlin v. Californiagreen1 sentence2020See Brendlin v. United States, 551 U.S. 249, 259 (2007). | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Morrisongreen1 sentence2018Jones v. Morrison, 458 S.W.2d 434, 439 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1970). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Grant v. McCullough
green
1 sentence1983This Court concluded: “No basis for this action can be conjured other than that it emanated from a strong desire to help this good lady.” 270 S.W.2d at 319 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Paschall's, Inc. v. Dozier
green
2 sentences1975A recent opinion on unjust enrichment is Paschall’s, Inc. v. Dozier (1966) 219 Tenn. 45 , 407 S.W.2d 150 , wherein the Court held a furnisher of materials and labor for improvements to a house, under a contract with one other than the owner of the house, could sue the owner under the doctrine of unjust enrichment, the owner- not having paid the value of the improvement to another, even though the time for filing a materialmen’s lien had expired. 1975A recent opinion on unjust enrichment is Paschall’s, Inc. v. Dozier (1966) 219 Tenn. 45 , 407 S.W.2d 150 , wherein the Court held a furnisher of materials and labor for improvements to a house, under a contract with one other than the owner of the house, could sue the owner under the doctrine of unjust enrichment, the owner- not having paid the value of the improvement to another, even though the time for filing a materialmen’s lien had expired. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Walker v. Brown
green
2 sentences1922Walker v. Brown, 165 U. S., 654 , 17 Sup. Ct., 453, 41 L. 1922Walker v. Brown, 165 U. S., 654 , 17 Sup. Ct., 453, 41 L. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
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.