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 2009–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. Tipton v. City of Knoxvillegreen2 sentences2013See Tipton, 205 S.W.3d at 460 (discussing “significant differences” in quo warranto procedures under the 1998 Amendments and the “older framework”). 2009See Tipton, 205 S.W.3d at 460 (discussing “significant differences” in quo warranto procedures under the 1998 Amendments and the “older framework”). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bennett v. Stutts
green
2 sentences2012Id. 2012Id. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
City of Oak Ridge v. Roane County
green
1 sentence2013A quo warranto challenge must be made within “thirty days after the operative date of the ordinance,” because thereafter, “the courts have no jurisdiction of such suits.” City of Oak Ridge, 563 S.W.2d at 898 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.