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 1999–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hopkins v. Hopkinsgreen1 sentence2017Hopkins v. Hopkins, 152 S.W.3d 447, 452 (Tenn. 2004) (Barker, J., dissenting). . . . | 1 | 1 |
Burress v. Sandersgreen1 sentence2007Penley v. Honda Motor Co., 31 S.W.3d 181, 183 (Tenn.2000); Burress v. Sanders, 31 S.W.3d 259, 262 (Tenn.Ct.App.2000). | 1 | 1 |
Penley v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd.green1 sentence2007Penley v. Honda Motor Co., 31 S.W.3d 181, 183 (Tenn.2000); Burress v. Sanders, 31 S.W.3d 259, 262 (Tenn.Ct.App.2000). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Ford
green
1 sentence2019As this court previously has recognized, “the danger of courts getting involved in the stipulation process is evident.” Id. (holding that the trial court erred in requiring the defendant to present a witness’s testimony through stipulation when the defendant objected to the presentation of the testimony through stipulation and the prosecutor objected to the wording of the stipulation). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
McCallen v. City of Memphis
green
1 sentence2004In McCallen v. City of Memphis, 786 S.W.2d 633 (Tenn. 1990), the Supreme Court stated the following regarding the standard of review in a case such as the one now before us: Review under the common law writ [of certiorari] is limited to whether “the inferior board or tribunal (1) has exceeded its jurisdiction, or (2) has acted illegally, arbitrarily, or fraudulently.” *** The courts must determine whether the action of the [local administrative body] in the exercise of its administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial function was illegal or in excess of jurisdiction. *** -2- The “fairly debatabl | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Martin v. Bussert
green
2 sentences1999Citing Wright, Mr. Hinton maintains that the “trier of fact has considerable latitude in allocating percentages of fault” to the parties. 1 1 In Wright, the Tennessee Supreme Court stated the following regarding the standard of review: Although it is true that the trier of fact has considerable latitude in allocating percentages of fault to negligent parties, see e.g., Martin v. Bussart, 292 Minn. 29 , 193 N.W.2d 134 (1971), appellate courts may alter those find- ings if they are clearly erroneous. 1999Citing Wright, Mr. Hinton maintains that the “trier of fact has considerable latitude in allocating percentages of fault” to the parties. 1 1 In Wright, the Tennessee Supreme Court stated the following regarding the standard of review: Although it is true that the trier of fact has considerable latitude in allocating percentages of fault to negligent parties, see e.g., Martin v. Bussart, 292 Minn. 29 , 193 N.W.2d 134 (1971), appellate courts may alter those find- ings if they are clearly erroneous. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.