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.
6 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2022 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Doug Satterfield v. Breeding Insulation Companygreen2 sentences2022However, our Supreme Court also stated: “The Satterfield analysis is inapplicable to the particular question presented in this case because, as this Court explained in Satterfield, the foreseeability test it articulated does not apply if ‘prior court decisions and statutes have already established the doctrines and rules governing a defendant’s conduct.’” Coffman v. Armstrong International, Inc., 615 S.W.3d 888 , 899 (Tenn. 2021) (quoting Satterfield, 266 S.W.3d at 365 )). 2022However, our Supreme Court also stated: “The Satterfield analysis is inapplicable to the particular question presented in this case because, as this Court explained in Satterfield, the foreseeability test it articulated does not apply if ‘prior court decisions and statutes have already established the doctrines and rules governing a defendant’s conduct.’” Coffman v. Armstrong International, Inc., 615 S.W.3d 888 , 899 (Tenn. 2021) (quoting Satterfield, 266 S.W.3d at 365 )). | 1 | 3 |
Marla H., Individually and as Next Best Friend to her Daughter Moriah F. H. v. Knox Countygreen1 sentence2017See generally Marla H. v. Knox Cty., 361 S.W.3d 518 , 530–37 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (undertaking a detailed analysis of whether 2 I express no opinion, however, as to whether the trial court reached the correct decision. -4- the defendant owed a duty under the Satterfield factors, despite the fact that a trial on the merits had occurred and the defendant was found liable). | 1 | 1 |
Morton v. Mortongreen1 sentence2014We believe it appropriate for this issue to be addressed first by the parties to the Trial Court for its initial resolution. -8- The final issue we address is Ms. Satterfield’s issue regarding whether this appeal is frivolous. “‘A frivolous appeal is one that is ‘devoid of merit,’ or one in which there is little prospect that [an appeal] can ever succeed.’” Morton v. Morton, 182 S.W.3d 821, 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (quoting Industrial Dev. | 1 | 1 |
INDUST. DEV. BD. OF TULLAHOMA v. Hancockgreen1 sentence2014Bd. of the City of Tullahoma v. Hancock, 901 S.W.2d 382, 385 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carolyn Coffman v. Armstrong International, Inc. - Dissenting
green
2 sentences2022However, our Supreme Court also stated: “The Satterfield analysis is inapplicable to the particular question presented in this case because, as this Court explained in Satterfield, the foreseeability test it articulated does not apply if ‘prior court decisions and statutes have already established the doctrines and rules governing a defendant’s conduct.’” Coffman v. Armstrong International, Inc., 615 S.W.3d 888 , 899 (Tenn. 2021) (quoting Satterfield, 266 S.W.3d at 365 )). 2022However, our Supreme Court also stated: “The Satterfield analysis is inapplicable to the particular question presented in this case because, as this Court explained in Satterfield, the foreseeability test it articulated does not apply if ‘prior court decisions and statutes have already established the doctrines and rules governing a defendant’s conduct.’” Coffman v. Armstrong International, Inc., 615 S.W.3d 888 , 899 (Tenn. 2021) (quoting Satterfield, 266 S.W.3d at 365 )). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Rich v. City of Mayfield Heights
green
1 sentence2004As to the procedural aspects of a qualified immunity defense, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has observed: “Qualified or ‘good faith’ immunity is an affirmative defense that is available to government officials performing discretionary functions.” Rich v. City of Mayfield Hts., 955 F.2d 1092 , 1094 (6th Cir.1992). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.