ultra vires exception (Tennessee) · Go Syfert
← Tennessee issues

ultra vires exception in Tennessee

5 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1915–2016 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 (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Morgangreen
tenn · 2008 · cited in 2 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016Suits may be brought against the State in such manner and in such courts as the Legislature may by law direct. 5 [Footnote 7 in original] Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-13-102 (a) provides: No court in the state shall have any power, jurisdiction or authority to entertain any suit against the state, or against any officer of the state acting by authority of the state, with a view to reach the state, its treasury, funds or property, and all such suits shall be dismissed as to the state or such officers, on motion, plea or demurrer of the law officer of the state, or counsel employed for the state. 4 We f

2016Suits may be brought against the State in such manner and in such courts as the Legislature may by law direct. 5 [Footnote 7 in original] Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-13-102 (a) provides: No court in the state shall have any power, jurisdiction or authority to entertain any suit against the state, or against any officer of the state acting by authority of the state, with a view to reach the state, its treasury, funds or property, and all such suits shall be dismissed as to the state or such officers, on motion, plea or demurrer of the law officer of the state, or counsel employed for the state. 4 We f

22

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 (3)

CaseCitedYears
Tennessee Ice Co. v. Raine green
tenn · 1901
2 sentences

1935As said by Mr. Justice Wilkes in Tennessee Ice Co. v. Raine, 107 Tenn., 151, 158 , 64 S. W., 29, 30 , *555 “there is a uniformity in the decisions that either party to an ultra vires contract, while retaining the benefits, is estopped to plead that the contract was ultra vires, in order to defeat recovery. ’ ’ Moreover, we agree with the Court of Appeals in rejecting altogether the application of the ultra vires doctrine in the instant case, for reasons hereinafter stated.

1935As said by Mr. Justice Wilkes in Tennessee Ice Co. v. Raine, 107 Tenn., 151, 158 , 64 S. W., 29, 30 , *555 “there is a uniformity in the decisions that either party to an ultra vires contract, while retaining the benefits, is estopped to plead that the contract was ultra vires, in order to defeat recovery. ’ ’ Moreover, we agree with the Court of Appeals in rejecting altogether the application of the ultra vires doctrine in the instant case, for reasons hereinafter stated.

11935–1935
Continental Ins. Co. v. Schulman green
tenn · 1917
1 sentence

1932Continental Insurance Co. v. Schulman, 140 Tenn., 481 ; Bank v. Bank, supra. ¡Such being our view of the matter, it is not necessary to enter into a discussion of the doctrine of ultra vires.

11932–1932
Scott v. Farmers & Merchants National Bank red
· 1903
2 sentences

1915So, the president of a corporation was not allowed to set up the doctrine of ultra vires as a defense when sued for the unlawful conversion of the stock.” It has been ruled that land, given the president of a railroad corporation in consideration of the company’s extending its line of railway to the property of the grantor, belongs to the company, even though it was without power under its charter to acquire such property, Scott v. Farmers,’ etc., Bank, 97 Tex., 31 , 75 S. W., 7 , 104 Am.

1915So, the president of a corporation was not allowed to set up the doctrine of ultra vires as a defense when sued for the unlawful conversion of the stock.” It has been ruled that land, given the president of a railroad corporation in consideration of the company’s extending its line of railway to the property of the grantor, belongs to the company, even though it was without power under its charter to acquire such property, Scott v. Farmers,’ etc., Bank, 97 Tex., 31 , 75 S. W., 7 , 104 Am.

11915–1915

Where else courts name it

TX 532 (1883–2026) WA 12 (1905–2021) NY 12 (1885–2025) IL 10 (1904–2015) DE 9 (2018–2024) CA 9 (1894–2026) MN 7 (1887–2003) ID 6 (1910–2025) MO 5 (1903–1984) CO 5 (1910–2021) AR 5 (2017–2026) TN 5 (1915–2016) PA 4 (1904–2016) MI 4 (1898–1975) VA 3 (1924–2010) IN 3 (1900–1993) NC 3 (1901–1994) OH 3 (1984–2019) OK 3 (1913–1916) MS 3 (1999–2004) NJ 3 (1903–1976) WI 2 (1902–1975) IA 2 (1905–1915) DC 2 (1881–2011) MD 2 (1989–2019) AL 2 (1880–2024) GA 2 (1911–1995) MA 2 (1978–1997)

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