5 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1936–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Whorton v. Bocktinggreen1 sentence2025See Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 419 (2007) (noting that “the relationship of that rule to the accuracy of the factfinding process is far less direct and profound”). | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Waverlee Homes, Inc.green1 sentence2017See, e.g., Wilson v. Waverlee Homes, Inc., 954 F.Supp. 1530, 1535-36 (M.D. | 1 | 1 |
Hataway v. McKinleygreen1 sentence2003See Hataway v. McKinley, 830 S.W.2d 53, 54 (Tenn.1992) (applying “most significant relationship” test to determine which state’s substantive law would apply to the wrongful death claim). | 1 | 1 |
Silver v. Allardgreen1 sentence2003Even assuming that the significant relationship test applies, however, the application of Tennessee’s futility exception to the demand requirement is not mandated. “[T]he demand requirement delineates the respective powers of the shareholder and the directors.” Silver v. Allard, 16 F.Supp.2d 966, 968-69 (N.D.Ill.1998). | 1 | 1 |
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,675 James M. Richardson v. Hamilton International Corporationgreen1 sentence2002Richardson v. Hamilton International Corp. , 469 F.2d 1382, 1385 (3 Cir. 1972), certiorari denied, 411 U.S. 986 , S.Ct. 2271, 36 L.Ed.2d 964 (1973); T.C. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences2003Clearly, the state of incorporation has a unique interest in regulating the relationship between the shareholders and the directors, and each jurisdiction “differ[s] *87 widely in defining the circumstances under which demand on directors will be excused.” Kamen, 500 U.S. at 101-02 , 111 S.Ct. 1711 (quotation omitted). 2003Clearly, the state of incorporation has a unique interest in regulating the relationship between the shareholders and the directors, and each jurisdiction “differ[s] *87 widely in defining the circumstances under which demand on directors will be excused.” Kamen, 500 U.S. at 101-02 , 111 S.Ct. 1711 (quotation omitted). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Pennsylvania v. Lopinson
green
1 sentence2002Richardson v. Hamilton International Corp. , 469 F.2d 1382, 1385 (3 Cir. 1972), certiorari denied, 411 U.S. 986 , S.Ct. 2271, 36 L.Ed.2d 964 (1973); T.C. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Dix ex rel. Younger v. Martin
green
2 sentences1936A right of action at law is not one open to any and all persons against any others, without reference to relationships which may exist between them.” In Dix v. Martin, 171 Mo. App., 266 , 157 S. W., 133 , *557 it was held that one standing in loco parentis cannot set np the relationship as a defense to an action in tort. 1936A right of action at law is not one open to any and all persons against any others, without reference to relationships which may exist between them.” In Dix v. Martin, 171 Mo. App., 266 , 157 S. W., 133 , *557 it was held that one standing in loco parentis cannot set np the relationship as a defense to an action in tort. | 1 | 1936–1936 |
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.