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.
36 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1983–2022 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Massengill v. Scottgreen2 sentences2017The doctrine of res judicata bars a second suit between the same parties or their privies on the same cause of action with respect to all issues which were or could have been litigated in the former suit.” Napolitano, 2017 WL 2265593 , at *11 (quoting Creech v. Addington, 281 S.W.3d 363, 376 (Tenn. 2009) (citing Massengill v. Scott, 738 S.W.2d 629, 631 (Tenn. 1987)). 2013“The doctrine of res judicata bars a second suit between the same parties or their privies on the same cause of action with respect to all issues which were or could have been litigated in the former suit.” Creech v. Addington, 281 S.W.3d 363 (Tenn. 2009) (citing Massengill, 738 S.W.2d at 631 ) (emphasis added). | 13 | 18 |
Goeke v. Woodsgreen2 sentences2009DISCUSSION A. Res Judicata “‘The doctrine of res judicata bars a second suit between the same parties or their privies on the same cause of action with respect to all issues which were or could have been litigated in the former suit.’”7 Richardson v. Tenn. Bd. of Dentistry, 913 S.W.2d 446, 459 (Tenn. 1995) (quoting Goeke v. Woods, 777 S.W.2d 347, 349 (Tenn. 1989)). 2003We have recently discussed the doctrine [...] as follows: The doctrine of res judicata bars a second suit between the same parties or their privies on the same cause of action with respect to all issues which were or could have been litigated in the former suit.[...] Goeke v. Woods, 777 S.W.2d 347, 349 (Tenn.1989) (quoting from Massengill v. Scott, 738 S.W.2d 629, 631 (Tenn.1987)). | 9 | 9 |
Richardson v. Tennessee Board of Dentistrygreen2 sentences2009DISCUSSION A. Res Judicata “‘The doctrine of res judicata bars a second suit between the same parties or their privies on the same cause of action with respect to all issues which were or could have been litigated in the former suit.’”7 Richardson v. Tenn. Bd. of Dentistry, 913 S.W.2d 446, 459 (Tenn. 1995) (quoting Goeke v. Woods, 777 S.W.2d 347, 349 (Tenn. 1989)). 2005“The doctrine of res judicata bars a second suit between the same parties or their privies on the same cause of action with respect to all issues which were or could have been litigated in the former suit.” Richardson v. Tennessee Board of Dentistry, 913 S.W.2d 446, 459 (Tenn. 1995) (quoting Massengill v. Scott, 738 S.W.2d 629, 631 (Tenn. 1987)). | 4 | 4 |
Wall v. Wallgreen2 sentences2007Wall v. Wall, 907 S.W.2d 829, 882 (Tenn.App.1995). 1997We discuss the following two issues together: 1) “[w]hether the trial court erred in continuing to retain custody of the minor children with the Mother”; and 2) “[w]hether the trial court erred in reducing Father's weekday visitation and restricting telephone calls to the children.” “The doctrine of res judicata bars a second suit between the same parties on the same cause of action with respect to all issues which were or could have been brought in the former suit.” Wall v. Wall, 907 S.W.2d 829, 832 (Tenn. App. 1995). | 4 | 4 |
Creech v. Addingtongreen2 sentences2017The doctrine of res judicata bars a second suit between the same parties or their privies on the same cause of action with respect to all issues which were or could have been litigated in the former suit.” Napolitano, 2017 WL 2265593 , at *11 (quoting Creech v. Addington, 281 S.W.3d 363, 376 (Tenn. 2009) (citing Massengill v. Scott, 738 S.W.2d 629, 631 (Tenn. 1987)). 2013“The doctrine of res judicata bars a second suit between the same parties or their privies on the same cause of action with respect to all issues which were or could have been litigated in the former suit.” Creech v. Addington, 281 S.W.3d 363 (Tenn. 2009) (citing Massengill, 738 S.W.2d at 631 ) (emphasis added). | 3 | 4 |
Jeanette Rea Jackson v. Bradley Smithgreen2 sentences2015Jackson v. Smith, 387 S.W.3d 486, 491 (Tenn. 2012). 2015Jackson v. Smith, 387 S.W.3d 486, 491 (Tenn. 2012). | 2 | 3 |
Gibson Lumber Co. v. Neely Coble Co.green2 sentences1990Massengill v. Scott, 738 S.W.2d 629, 631 (Tenn.1987); Gibson Lumber Co. v. Neely Coble Co., 651 S.W.2d 232, 233-34 (Tenn.Ct.App.1983). 1985We noted in Gibson as follows: “Application of the doctrine of res judicata bars a second suit between the same parties and their privies on the same cause of action as to all issues which were or could have been litigated in the former suit (citation omitted).” Gibson, 651 S.W.2d at 234 . | 1 | 2 |
Sweatt v. Tennessee Department of Correctiongreen1 sentence2017“The primary purposes of the doctrine are to promote finality in litigation, prevent inconsistent or contradictory judgments, conserve legal resources, and protect litigants from the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits.” Creech, 281 S.W.3d at 376 (citing Sweatt v. Tenn. Dep’t of Corr., 88 S.W.3d 567, 570 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002)). | 1 | 1 |
Lien v. Couchgreen1 sentence2001The purpose of the doctrine is to “promote[] finality in litigation.” Lien v. Couch, 993 S.W.2d 53, 55 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (citing Moulton v. Ford Motor Co., 533 S.W.2d 295, 296 (Tenn.1976)). | 1 | 1 |
Moulton v. Ford Motor Co.green1 sentence2001The purpose of the doctrine is to “promote[] finality in litigation.” Lien v. Couch, 993 S.W.2d 53, 55 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (citing Moulton v. Ford Motor Co., 533 S.W.2d 295, 296 (Tenn.1976)). | 1 | 1 |
Hampton v. Tennessee Truck Sales, Inc.green1 sentence2000Hampton v. Tennessee Truck Sales, Inc., 993 S.W.2d 643, 645 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). | 1 | 1 |
Collins v. Greene County Bankgreen1 sentence1999Penn-America Insurance Company v. Crittenden, 984 S.W.2d 231 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998); Collins v. Greene County Bank, 916 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995)(emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Woodard v. Woodardgreen1 sentence1997An award of custody is res judicata, absent a finding of a “change in material circumstances affecting the welfare of the children.” Woodard v. Woodard, 783 S.W.2d 188, 189 (Tenn. App. 1989). -5- When two people join in conceiving a child, they select that child’s natural parents. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stacks v. Saunders
green
2 sentences2003Massengill v. Scott, Tenn.1987, 738 S.W.2d 629 ; Stacks v. Saunders, Tenn.App.1990, 812 S.W.2d 587 . 1995Massengill v. Scott, Tenn.1987, 738 S.W.2d 629 ; Stacks v. Saunders, Tenn.App.1990, 812 S.W.2d 587 . | 2 | 1995–2003 |
Allan F. White Jr. v. Bradley County Government
neutral
1 sentence2022Collateral estoppel operates to bar a second suit between the same parties and their privies on a different cause of action only as to issues which were actually litigated and determined in the former suit.” Id. (footnote omitted). -6- and decided on the merits in the earlier proceeding, (3) that the judgment in the earlier proceeding has become final, (4) that the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party or is in privity with a party to the earlier proceeding, and (5) that the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted had a full and fair opportunity in the earli | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Cromwell v. County of Sac
green
1 sentence2009In other words, “the judgment on the first suit operates as collateral estoppel as to, but only to, those matters . . . which were in issue . . . and upon the determination of which the initial judgment necessarily depended.” Id. -8- The doctrine of res judicata bars a second suit between the same parties or their privies on the same cause of action with respect to all issues which were or could have been litigated in the former suit. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Penn-America Insurance Co. v. Crittenden
green
1 sentence1999Penn-America Insurance Company v. Crittenden, 984 S.W.2d 231 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998); Collins v. Greene County Bank, 916 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995)(emphasis added). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Phillips v. Pittsburgh Consolidated Coal Co.
green
1 sentence1987Rule 56.03, Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure; Phillips v. Pittsburg Consolidated Coal Company, Tenn., 541 S.W.2d 411 (1976). *631 The doctrine of res judicata bars a second suit between the same parties or their privies on the same cause of action with respect to all issues which were or could have been litigated in the former suit. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Scales v. Scales
green
1 sentence1983Application of the doctrine of res judicata bars a second suit between the same parties and their privies on the same cause of action as to all issues which were or could have been litigated in the former suit, Scales v. Scales (1977 Tenn.App.M.S.), 564 S.W.2d 667 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.