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 1 courts 2013–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kirkland Sturgis v. Donna Smith Thompsongreen2 sentences2013“The failure of an appellant from general sessions court to comply with the statutory security requirement means that the circuit court never acquires subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal . . . .” Sturgis, 2011 WL 2416066, at *3 (citing Discover Bank, 2008 WL 245976 , at *8); see Carter, 373 S.W.3d at 551 (noting that an appeal is not perfected unless the security requirement is satisfied). 2013“The failure of an appellant from general sessions court to comply with the statutory security requirement means that the circuit court never acquires subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal . . . .” Sturgis, 2011 WL 2416066, at *3 (citing Discover Bank, 2008 WL 245976 , at *8); see Carter, 373 S.W.3d at 551 (noting that an appeal is not perfected unless the security requirement is satisfied). | 5 | 5 |
Kendra D. Carter v. Retha Battsgreen2 sentences2013“The failure of an appellant from general sessions court to comply with the statutory security requirement means that the circuit court never acquires subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal . . . .” Sturgis, 2011 WL 2416066, at *3 (citing Discover Bank, 2008 WL 245976 , at *8); see Carter, 373 S.W.3d at 551 (noting that an appeal is not perfected unless the security requirement is satisfied). 2013“The failure of an appellant from general sessions court to comply with the statutory security requirement means that the circuit court never acquires subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal . . . .” Sturgis, 2011 WL 2416066, at *3 (citing Discover Bank, 2008 WL 245976 , at *8); see Carter, 373 S.W.3d at 551 (noting that an appeal is not perfected unless the security requirement is satisfied). | 4 | 4 |
City of Red Boiling Springs v. Whitleygreen1 sentence2013The issue in this case relates to the requirement in Section 27-5-103 to “give bond with good security . . . for the costs of the appeal.” The bond to which this provision refers has been called, among other things, an “appeal bond,” a “cost bond,” a “surety bond,” or an “appeal bond for costs.” See, e.g., Jacob, 2012 WL 3249605 , at *3 (referring to the requirement of filing an “appeal bond”); Carter, at 373 S.W.3d at 550-51 (referring to the terms “appeal bond” and “cost bond” interchangeably); Sturgis, 2011 WL 2416066, at *3 (referring to the terms “appeal bond” and “cost bond” interchangea | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.