prongs test (Tennessee) · Go Syfert
← Tennessee issues

prongs test in Tennessee

5 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2011 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 (2)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Burnsgreen
tenn · 1999 · cited in 3 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2001–2002
2 sentences

2002Burns v. State, 6 S.W.3d 453, 461 (Tenn.1999).

2002See State v. Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453, 461 (Tenn. 1999).

33
Rales v. Blasband Ex Rel. Easco Hand Tools, Inc.red
del · 1993 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
1 sentence

2011Brehm, 746 A.2d at 253 . 10 “The essential predicate for the Aronson test is the fact that a decision of the board of directors is being challenged in the derivative suit.” Rales, 634 A.2d at 933 (emphasis in original).

11

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 (2)

CaseCitedYears
Brehm v. Eisner green
del · 2000
1 sentence

2011Brehm, 746 A.2d at 253 . 10 “The essential predicate for the Aronson test is the fact that a decision of the board of directors is being challenged in the derivative suit.” Rales, 634 A.2d at 933 (emphasis in original).

12011–2011
State v. Denton red
tenn · 1996
1 sentence

1998The supreme court pointed out that none of the prongs of the test were determinative and that "the results of each must be weighed and considered in relation to each other." Id.

11998–1998

Where else courts name it

PA 59 (1998–2026) GA 26 (2012–2026) TX 14 (1971–2026) MS 5 (2000–2013) TN 5 (1998–2011) CA 4 (1980–2016) CT 4 (2004–2021) NM 3 (2016–2018) OH 2 (2000–2001) IA 2 (2015–2015) DC 2 (2011–2023) NJ 2 (2010–2011)

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