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.
38 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 2007–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Edwards v. Allengreen2 sentences2026P. 12.02(6) “‘seeks only to determine whether the pleadings state a claim upon which relief can be granted.’” Robinson v. City of Clarksville, 673 S.W.3d 556 , 566 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2023) (quoting Edwards v. Allen, 216 S.W.3d 278, 284 (Tenn. 2007)). 2025P. 12.02(6) motion to dismiss “seeks only to determine whether the pleadings state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Edwards v. Allen, 216 S.W.3d 278, 284 (Tenn. 2007). | 15 | 15 |
Trau-Med of America, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co.green2 sentences2014As noted above, a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12.02(6) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, “only seeks to determine whether the pleadings state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” See Trau-Med, 71 S.W.3d at 696 . 2012Our standard of review in this case is as articulated in Trau-Med of America, Inc. v. Allstate Ins., 71 S.W.3d 691, 696-97 (Tenn. 2002): A Rule 12.02(6) motion to dismiss only seeks to determine whether the pleadings state a claim upon which relief can be granted. | 5 | 6 |
Stein v. Davidson Hotel Co.green2 sentences2019Stein v. Davidson Hotel Co., 945 S.W.2d 714, 716 (Tenn. 1997). 2018Stein v. Davidson Hotel Co., 945 S.W.2d 714, 716 (Tenn. 1997). | 5 | 5 |
Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc.green2 sentences2021Such a motion challenges the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the strength of the plaintiff’s proof.” Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., 356 S.W.3d 889, 894 (Tenn. 2011) (citing Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422 , 1 It does not appear that Ms. Haywood appealed the trial court’s dismissal of her lawsuit against Trexis. 2019A Rule 12.02(6) motion tests “only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the strength of the plaintiff’s proof or evidence.” Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Tenn. 2011). | 4 | 7 |
Mack Phillips v. Montgomery County, Tennesseegreen2 sentences2018A Rule 12.02(6) motion to dismiss “requires a court to determine if the pleadings state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” Phillips v. Montgomery Cty., 442 S.W.3d 233, 237 (Tenn. 2014) (citing Tenn. R. 2015Id. (citing Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Tenn. 2011)). | 1 | 2 |
Highwoods Properties, Inc. v. City of Memphisgreen2 sentences2015Highwoods Properties, Inc. v. City of Memphis, 297 S.W.3d 695, 700 (Tenn. 2009). 2011P. 12.02(6), finding that “the Complaint in this matter fails to state a claim against Defendant Robert Daniel Smith upon which relief may be granted.” In Highwoods Properties, Inc. v. City of Memphis, 297 S.W.3d 695 (Tenn. 2009), the Tennessee Supreme Court noted that [a] Rule 12.02(6) motion under the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure seeks to determine whether the pleadings state a claim upon which relief may be granted. | 1 | 2 |
Michael Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., d/b/a Beaman Dodge Chrysler Jeepgreen1 sentence2021Such a motion challenges the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the strength of the plaintiff’s proof.” Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., 356 S.W.3d 889, 894 (Tenn. 2011) (citing Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422 , 1 It does not appear that Ms. Haywood appealed the trial court’s dismissal of her lawsuit against Trexis. | 1 | 1 |
Jolyn Cullum v. Jan McCoolgreen1 sentence2017Cullum v. McCool, 432 S.W.3d 829, 832 (Tenn. 2013) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Bogan v. Bogangreen1 sentence2017Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721, 733 (Tenn. 2001). 7 As our Supreme Court has elucidated with regard to motions seeking dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6): A Rule 12.02(6) motion to dismiss only seeks to determine whether the pleadings state a claim upon which relief can be granted. | 1 | 1 |
Donaldson v. Donaldsongreen1 sentence2014Rule 8 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure provides in pertinent part that “[a] pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (2) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.” See Donaldson v. Donaldson, 557 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Tenn. 1977) (holding that when “no claim for -12- relief is stated by a party, a court may properly dismiss the action, either on motion or sua sponte.”); see also Abshure v. Methodist Healthcare-Memphis Hosps., 325 S.W.3d 98, 104 (Tenn. 2010) | 1 | 1 |
Abshure v. Methodist Healthcare-Memphis Hospitalsgreen1 sentence2014Rule 8 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure provides in pertinent part that “[a] pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (2) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.” See Donaldson v. Donaldson, 557 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Tenn. 1977) (holding that when “no claim for -12- relief is stated by a party, a court may properly dismiss the action, either on motion or sua sponte.”); see also Abshure v. Methodist Healthcare-Memphis Hosps., 325 S.W.3d 98, 104 (Tenn. 2010) | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
METROP. GOV. NASH., DAVIDSON CTY v. Barry Construction Company, Inc.
green
1 sentence2018Such a motion challenges the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the 2 Metro’s zoning code, now repealed, previously referred to the “final site plan” as the “final master development plan.” See Barry Const. Co., 240 S.W.3d at 843 n.5. 3 Petitioners present three issues for our consideration: (1) whether the Commission acted in a discretionary manner when it approved the Developer’s final site plan without the benefit of final planned unit development approval; (2) whether the Commission’s preferential treatment of the Developer affected its ability to render decisions in accordance with t | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.