plain meaning rule (Tennessee) · Go Syfert
← Tennessee issues

plain meaning rule in Tennessee

5 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2019 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Kyle v. Williamsgreen
tenn · 2003 · cited in 2 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2007–2011
2 sentences

2011If the language in a statute is unambiguous, we must apply the plain meaning with the presumption that “the legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says.” Kyle v. Williams, 98 S.W.3d 661, 664 (Tenn. 2003).

2007If the language is unambiguous, then we must apply the plain meaning with the presumption that “the legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says.” Parker, 2005 WL 1377839 , at *2 (quoting Kyle v. Williams, 98 S.W.3d 661, 664 (Tenn. 2003)). -6- Turning back to the statute in question, Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-3-109 reads as follows: The appointment of a conservator for a disabled person does not automatically terminate the duty of the disabled person to support such disabled person's spouse or dependent minor children.

22

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Hotchkiss v. National City Bank of New York green
nysd · 1911
2 sentences

2019In Hotchkiss v. National City Bank of New York , 200 F. 287 (S.D.N.Y. 1911), the New York court refused to consider witness testimony on custom associated with a contract, stating that the witness's testimony was "not competent evidence at all, since it in effect usurps the court's function." Hotchkiss , 200 F. at 293 .

2019In Hotchkiss v. National City Bank of New York , 200 F. 287 (S.D.N.Y. 1911), the New York court refused to consider witness testimony on custom associated with a contract, stating that the witness's testimony was "not competent evidence at all, since it in effect usurps the court's function." Hotchkiss , 200 F. at 293 .

12019–2019
Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine green
scotus · 2002
2 sentences

2004Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, 537 U.S. 51, 62-63 , 123 S.Ct. 518, 526 , 154 L.Ed.2d 466 (2002).

2004Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, 537 U.S. 51, 62-63 , 123 S.Ct. 518, 526 , 154 L.Ed.2d 466 (2002).

12004–2004
Boston Sand and Gravel Co. v. United States green
scotus · 1928
2 sentences

1992Further, we note that the plain-meaning rule is “an axiom of experience [rather than] a rule of law, and does not preclude consideration of persuasive evidence if it exists.” Boston Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 278 U.S. 41, 48 , 49 S.Ct. 52, 54 , 73 L.Ed. 170 (1928) (Holmes, J.), quoted with approval in Watt v. Alaska, 451 U.S. 259, 266 , 101 S.Ct. 1673, 1678 , 68 L.Ed.2d 80 (1981).

1992Further, we note that the plain-meaning rule is “an axiom of experience [rather than] a rule of law, and does not preclude consideration of persuasive evidence if it exists.” Boston Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 278 U.S. 41, 48 , 49 S.Ct. 52, 54 , 73 L.Ed. 170 (1928) (Holmes, J.), quoted with approval in Watt v. Alaska, 451 U.S. 259, 266 , 101 S.Ct. 1673, 1678 , 68 L.Ed.2d 80 (1981).

11992–1992
Watt v. Alaska green
scotus · 1981
2 sentences

1992Further, we note that the plain-meaning rule is “an axiom of experience [rather than] a rule of law, and does not preclude consideration of persuasive evidence if it exists.” Boston Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 278 U.S. 41, 48 , 49 S.Ct. 52, 54 , 73 L.Ed. 170 (1928) (Holmes, J.), quoted with approval in Watt v. Alaska, 451 U.S. 259, 266 , 101 S.Ct. 1673, 1678 , 68 L.Ed.2d 80 (1981).

1992Further, we note that the plain-meaning rule is “an axiom of experience [rather than] a rule of law, and does not preclude consideration of persuasive evidence if it exists.” Boston Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 278 U.S. 41, 48 , 49 S.Ct. 52, 54 , 73 L.Ed. 170 (1928) (Holmes, J.), quoted with approval in Watt v. Alaska, 451 U.S. 259, 266 , 101 S.Ct. 1673, 1678 , 68 L.Ed.2d 80 (1981).

11992–1992

Where else courts name it

NM 286 (1952–2026) MD 133 (1907–2023) CA 121 (1932–2026) WA 112 (1990–2025) TX 103 (1973–2026) CT 92 (1986–2025) WI 81 (1968–2025) SC 71 (1997–2026) FL 38 (1981–2025) AK 36 (1980–2024) MI 34 (1981–2024) IL 31 (1984–2025) VT 31 (1980–2026) VA 25 (1989–2025) NV 24 (1986–2019) AZ 23 (1976–2025) UT 22 (1990–2024) AL 18 (2001–2018) NY 17 (1977–2015) MN 17 (1986–2016) PA 16 (1982–2026) DC 16 (1977–2024) HI 15 (1983–2023) NC 13 (2005–2026) KY 12 (2005–2025) CO 12 (1995–2026) OH 11 (1984–2021) MS 10 (2001–2018) IA 10 (1986–2020) NH 9 (1978–2013) DE 8 (1994–2017) MO 8 (1979–2022) ME 7 (1991–2013) NJ 6 (1961–2021) MA 6 (1986–2013) WY 6 (1991–2007) RI 6 (2005–2017) TN 5 (1992–2019) AR 5 (1996–2006) KS 4 (1994–2014) ID 4 (1990–2022) IN 4 (1992–2023) OK 4 (1973–2013) MT 4 (1985–1995) VI 3 (2008–2025) NE 3 (1986–2025) SD 2 (2000–2025) WV 2 (2014–2014)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check