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.
31 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Carlson v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See Carlson v. State, 598 P.2d 969, 972 (Alaska 1979). 2006In Bowers , the Supreme Court adopted the planning-operational test, explaining that “[u]nder the planning-operational test, decisions that rise to the level of planning or policy-making are considered discretionary acts which do not give rise to tort liability, while decisions that are merely operational are not considered discretionary acts and, therefore, do not give rise to immunity.” Bowers, 826 S.W.2d at 430 (citing Carlson v. State, 598 P.2d 969, 972 (Alaska 1979)). | 11 | 11 |
Bowers by Bowers v. City of Chattanoogagreen2 sentences2018However, the Tennessee Supreme Court articulated the test for determining whether an act is discretionary in Bowers by Bowers v. City of Chattanooga, 826 S.W.2d 427 (Tenn. 1992), to-wit: Under the planning-operational test, decisions that rise to the level of planning or policy-making are considered discretionary acts which do not give rise to tort liability, while decisions that are merely operational are not considered discretionary acts and, therefore, do not give rise to immunity. 2016The TGTLA does not define the term “discretionary function,” but our Supreme Court, in Bowers v. City of Chattanooga, 826 S.W.2d 427 (Tenn. 1992), adopted the planning-operational test to assist courts in analyzing whether the negligent act or omission of the governmental entity at issue in the case is a discretionary function. | 9 | 24 |
United States v. Gaubertgreen2 sentences1997See United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. ___ , 111 S.Ct. 1267 , 113 L.Ed.2d 335 (1991) (recognizing that operational activities grounded in policy are entitled to discretionary function immunity.) Under the planning-operational test, discretionary function immunity does not automatically attach to all acts involving choice or judgment. 1997See United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. ___ , 111 S.Ct. 1267 , 113 L.Ed.2d 335 (1991) (recognizing that operational activities grounded in policy are entitled to discretionary function immunity.) Under the planning-operational test, discretionary function immunity does not automatically attach to all acts involving choice or judgment. | 4 | 4 |
Helton v. Knox County, Tenn.green1 sentence2012A governmental entity is immune from suit for actions involving “planning or policy-making.” Helton v. Knox Cnty., 922 S.W.2d 877, 885 (Tenn. 1996) (quoting Bowers, 826 S.W.2d at 430 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Limbaugh v. Coffee Medical Center
green
2 sentences2012Bowers, 826 S.W.2d at 430 . *** Our Supreme Court applied the planning-operational test in Limbaugh v. Coffee Medical Center, 59 S.W.3d 73 (Tenn. 2001), to determine whether a nursing home’s failure to follow employee disciplinary guidelines was a discretionary function for which immunity was available under the TGTLA. 2011Our Supreme Court applied the planning-operational test in Limbaugh v. Coffee Medical Center, 59 S.W.3d 73 (Tenn.2001), to determine whether a nursing home’s failure to follow employee disciplinary guidelines was a discretionary function for which immunity was available under the TGTLA. | 3 | 2002–2012 |
Cox v. State
green
2 sentences2004Id. at * 3; Cox v. State, 844 S.W.2d at 176 . 2004Id. at *3; Cox v. State, 844 S.W.2d at 176 . | 3 | 2002–2004 |
GIGGERS v. Memphis Housing Authority
green
1 sentence2012In Giggers v. Memphis Housing Authority, 363 S.W.3d 500 (2012), the Tennessee Supreme Court recently reviewed the planning-operational test: To determine whether a governmental entity is entitled to immunity for a discretionary decision, this Court applies the “planning-operational test.” Bowers v. City of Chattanooga, 826 S.W.2d 427, 430 (Tenn. 1992). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Carter v. City of Stuart
green
1 sentence1997Id. at 957 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.