26 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1879–2020 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Terrance N. CARTER v. Rickey BELLgreen2 sentences2017“The paramount rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent without broadening the statute beyond its intended scope.” Baker v. State, 417 S.W.3d 428, 433 (Tenn. 2013) (citing Carter v. Bell, 279 S.W.3d 560, 564 (Tenn. 2009)). 2017“The paramount rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent without broadening the statute beyond its intended scope.” Id. (citing Carter v. Bell, 279 S.W.3d 560, 564 (Tenn. 2009)). | 6 | 7 |
Lee Medical, Inc. v. Paula Beechergreen2 sentences2017This court must “‘begin with the words that the General Assembly has chosen’ and ‘give these words their natural and ordinary meaning.’” Id. (quoting Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 526 (Tenn. 2010)). 2017This court “‘must always begin with the words that the General Assembly has chosen’ and ‘give these words their natural and ordinary meaning.’” Id. (quoting Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 526 (Tenn. 2010)). | 6 | 6 |
Morris v. Morrisgreen2 sentences2001Although as a rule, the court will preserve, as far as possible, the interests of the succession, this rule yields to the paramount rule which makes the [conservatee’s] welfare the first consideration without regard to the rights of those who may have eventually rights to succession. -6- Id.; see also Morris v. Morris, 195 Tenn. 133 , 258 S.W.2d 732 (1953). 2001Although as a rule, the court will preserve, as far as possible, the interests of the succession, this rule yields to the paramount rule which makes the [conservatee’s] welfare the first consideration without regard to the rights of those who may have eventually rights to succession. -6- Id.; see also Morris v. Morris, 195 Tenn. 133 , 258 S.W.2d 732 (1953). | 4 | 5 |
State v. Shermangreen2 sentences2015The paramount rule of statutory construction “is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent without broadening the statute beyond its intended scope.” Carter v. Bell, 279 S.W.3d 560, 564 (Tenn. 2009) (citing State v. Sherman, 266 S.W.3d 395, 401 (Tenn. 2008)). 2014The paramount rule of statutory construction “is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent without broadening the statute beyond its intended scope.” Carter v. Bell, 279 S.W.3d 560, 564 (Tenn.2009) (citing State v. Sherman, 266 S.W.3d 395, 401 (Tenn.2008)). | 4 | 4 |
Lynn v. Turpingreen2 sentences2020Furthermore, “[s]ince the right is created by a clause in deeds, the paramount rule obtains that the intention of the parties is controlling as that intention is found to be evidenced by the language of the deed and the circumstances surrounding the conveyance.” Id. 2005Finally, since these easements were created by express grant, Highway 64 notes that “the paramount rule obtains that the intention of the parties is controlling as that intention is found to be evidenced by the language of the deed and the circumstances surrounding the conveyance.” Lynn v. Turpin, 187 Tenn. 384 , 215 S.W.2d 794, 796 (1948); see also Foshee v. Brigman, 174 Tenn. 564 , 129 S.W.2d 207, 208 (1939). | 1 | 2 |
Randall D. Kiser v. Ian J. Wolfegreen2 sentences2019For example in Kiser v. Wolfe , the Court stated: "When construing an insurance contract, 'the paramount rule ... is to ascertain the intent of the parties ... [which] is to be derived from the four corners of the policy giving effect to all parts.' 'An elementary precept of contract law' is that when the language is clear, courts must not look beyond the four corners of the instrument." Kiser v. Wolfe , 353 S.W.3d 741 , 748 (Tenn. 2011) (citations omitted) (quoting Blue Diamond Coal Co. v. Holland-Am. 2013When courts are called upon to construe insurance contracts, “‘the paramount rule is to ascertain the intent of the parties which is to be derived from the four corners of the policy[,] giving effect to all parts.’” Kiser, 353 S.W.3d at 748 (ellipses and brackets omitted) (quoting Blue Diamond Coal Co. v. Holland-Am. | 1 | 2 |
Tracy Rose Baker v. State of Tennesseegreen2 sentences2017“The paramount rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent without broadening the statute beyond its intended scope.” Baker v. State, 417 S.W.3d 428, 433 (Tenn. 2013) (citing Carter v. Bell, 279 S.W.3d 560, 564 (Tenn. 2009)). 2017“The paramount rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent without broadening the statute beyond its intended scope.” Id. (citing Carter v. Bell, 279 S.W.3d 560, 564 (Tenn. 2009)). | 1 | 2 |
Larue v. Greene County Bankgreen2 sentences2005Tennessee does not require the existence of strict necessity, and we may find the existence of an easement by necessity where such easements is “of such reasonable necessity to the full enjoyment of the dominant tenement.” LaRue v. Greene County Bank, 179 Tenn. 394 , 166 S.W.2d 1044, 1050 (1942); see also Harris v. Gray, 28 Tenn.App. 231 , 188 S.W.2d 933, 934-35 (1945). 2005Tennessee does not require the existence of strict necessity, and we may find the existence of an easement by necessity where such easements is “of such reasonable necessity to the full enjoyment of the dominant tenement.” LaRue v. Greene County Bank, 179 Tenn. 394 , 166 S.W.2d 1044, 1050 (1942); see also Harris v. Gray, 28 Tenn.App. 231 , 188 S.W.2d 933, 934-35 (1945). | 1 | 2 |
Smelcer v. Rippetoegreen1 sentence2020Bailey v. Gwyn, No. E2006- 01461-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL 2405135 , at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 24, 2007) (quoting Smelcer v. Rippetoe, 147 S.W.2d 109, 113-14 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1940)). | 1 | 1 |
Carson Creek Vacation Resorts, Inc. v. State, Department of Revenuegreen2 sentences2011The paramount rule of statutory construction is “to ascertain and give effect to the intention and purpose of the legislature.” Lee, 237 S.W.3d at 332 (quoting Carson Creek Vacation Resorts, Inc. v. State Dep’t of Revenue, 865 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tenn. 1993)). 2011Our goal is to determine “a reasonable construction ‘in light of the purposes, objectives, and spirit of the statute based on good sound reasoning.’” Id. (quoting Scott v. Ashland Healthcare Ctr, Inc., 49 S.W.3d 281, 286 (Tenn. 2001)). | 1 | 1 |
Scott v. Ashland Healthcare Center, Inc.green1 sentence2011Our goal is to determine “a reasonable construction ‘in light of the purposes, objectives, and spirit of the statute based on good sound reasoning.’” Id. (quoting Scott v. Ashland Healthcare Ctr, Inc., 49 S.W.3d 281, 286 (Tenn. 2001)). | 1 | 1 |
Spangler v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.green1 sentence2007See, e.g., id. at 192-93; Polk & Sullivan, Inc. v. United Cities Gas Co., 783 S.W.2d 538, 541 (Tenn.1989). *642 In construing an insurance contract, “the paramount rule ... is to ascertain the intent of the parties. | 1 | 1 |
Polk & Sullivan, Inc. v. United Cities Gas Co.green1 sentence2007See, e.g., id. at 192-93; Polk & Sullivan, Inc. v. United Cities Gas Co., 783 S.W.2d 538, 541 (Tenn.1989). *642 In construing an insurance contract, “the paramount rule ... is to ascertain the intent of the parties. | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Gray Et Ux.green2 sentences2005Tennessee does not require the existence of strict necessity, and we may find the existence of an easement by necessity where such easements is “of such reasonable necessity to the full enjoyment of the dominant tenement.” LaRue v. Greene County Bank, 179 Tenn. 394 , 166 S.W.2d 1044, 1050 (1942); see also Harris v. Gray, 28 Tenn.App. 231 , 188 S.W.2d 933, 934-35 (1945). 2005Tennessee does not require the existence of strict necessity, and we may find the existence of an easement by necessity where such easements is “of such reasonable necessity to the full enjoyment of the dominant tenement.” LaRue v. Greene County Bank, 179 Tenn. 394 , 166 S.W.2d 1044, 1050 (1942); see also Harris v. Gray, 28 Tenn.App. 231 , 188 S.W.2d 933, 934-35 (1945). | 1 | 1 |
Foshee v. Brigmangreen2 sentences2005Finally, since these easements were created by express grant, Highway 64 notes that “the paramount rule obtains that the intention of the parties is controlling as that intention is found to be evidenced by the language of the deed and the circumstances surrounding the conveyance.” Lynn v. Turpin, 187 Tenn. 384 , 215 S.W.2d 794, 796 (1948); see also Foshee v. Brigman, 174 Tenn. 564 , 129 S.W.2d 207, 208 (1939). 2005Finally, since these easements were created by express grant, Highway 64 notes that “the paramount rule obtains that the intention of the parties is controlling as that intention is found to be evidenced by the language of the deed and the circumstances surrounding the conveyance.” Lynn v. Turpin, 187 Tenn. 384 , 215 S.W.2d 794, 796 (1948); see also Foshee v. Brigman, 174 Tenn. 564 , 129 S.W.2d 207, 208 (1939). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hutchison v. Board
green
2 sentences1962“The devise to a son and to his children, and if he dies without children then to his sister and her children, creates a life estate in the son with- remainder to the children, and at birth of a child the remainder' *321 would vest, subject to open and let in after-born children.” In the more recent leading case of Hutchison v. Board, 194 Tenn. 223 , 250 S. W. (2d) 82 , in an opinion'by Chief Justice Neil, the following was- said: “The paramount rule of construction to which all others are subservient is that the intention of the grantor is to be decided by consideration of the words he used. 1962“The devise to a son and to his children, and if he dies without children then to his sister and her children, creates a life estate in the son with- remainder to the children, and at birth of a child the remainder' *321 would vest, subject to open and let in after-born children.” In the more recent leading case of Hutchison v. Board, 194 Tenn. 223 , 250 S. W. (2d) 82 , in an opinion'by Chief Justice Neil, the following was- said: “The paramount rule of construction to which all others are subservient is that the intention of the grantor is to be decided by consideration of the words he used. | 2 | 1955–1962 |
Quarles v. Arthur
green
2 sentences1962And as a corollary, to reach the intention-, it is proper to consider the entire instrument without regard to technical parts or divisions of the deed.” Citing numerous cases including Quarles v. Arthur, 33 Tenn. App. 291 , 231 S. W. (2d) 589, 591 . 1962And as a corollary, to reach the intention-, it is proper to consider the entire instrument without regard to technical parts or divisions of the deed.” Citing numerous cases including Quarles v. Arthur, 33 Tenn. App. 291 , 231 S. W. (2d) 589, 591 . | 2 | 1955–1962 |
Templeton v. Stong
neutral
2 sentences1955Templeton v. Stong, 182 Tenn. 591, 594 , 188 S. W. (2d) 560 ; McCord v. Ransom, 185 Tenn. 677 , 207 S. W. (2d) 581 ; LaRue v. Greene County Bank, 179 Tenn. 394 , 166 S. W. (2d) 1044 ; Thompson v. Turner, 186 Tenn. 241 , 209 S. W. (2d) 25 ; Quarles v. Arthur, 33 Tenn. App. 291 , 231 S. W. (2d) 589 ; Archer v. Culbertson, 28 Tenn. App. 52 , 185 S. W. (2d) 912 ; Hall v. Crocker, 192 Tenn. 506, 509 , 241 S. W. (2d) 548 ; Hutchison v. Board, 194 Tenn. 223 , 250 S. W. (2d) 82 . 1955Templeton v. Stong, 182 Tenn. 591, 594 , 188 S. W. (2d) 560 ; McCord v. Ransom, 185 Tenn. 677 , 207 S. W. (2d) 581 ; LaRue v. Greene County Bank, 179 Tenn. 394 , 166 S. W. (2d) 1044 ; Thompson v. Turner, 186 Tenn. 241 , 209 S. W. (2d) 25 ; Quarles v. Arthur, 33 Tenn. App. 291 , 231 S. W. (2d) 589 ; Archer v. Culbertson, 28 Tenn. App. 52 , 185 S. W. (2d) 912 ; Hall v. Crocker, 192 Tenn. 506, 509 , 241 S. W. (2d) 548 ; Hutchison v. Board, 194 Tenn. 223 , 250 S. W. (2d) 82 . | 2 | 1952–1955 |
McLeroy v. McLeroy
green
2 sentences1954Speaking of the limited effect of the statute abolishing joint tenancy, the Court, through Mr. Justice McKinney, said: “The authorities are practically unanimous in holding that such statutes in no wise abridge or prohibit the creation of an estate of survivorship by will or deed.” McLeroy v. McLeroy, 163 Tenn. 124, 126 , 40 S. W. (2d) 1027, 1028 . 1954Speaking of the limited effect of the statute abolishing joint tenancy, the Court, through Mr. Justice McKinney, said: “The authorities are practically unanimous in holding that such statutes in no wise abridge or prohibit the creation of an estate of survivorship by will or deed.” McLeroy v. McLeroy, 163 Tenn. 124, 126 , 40 S. W. (2d) 1027, 1028 . | 2 | 1954–1954 |
Lee v. Franklin Special School District Board of Education
green
1 sentence2011The paramount rule of statutory construction is “to ascertain and give effect to the intention and purpose of the legislature.” Lee, 237 S.W.3d at 332 (quoting Carson Creek Vacation Resorts, Inc. v. State Dep’t of Revenue, 865 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tenn. 1993)). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Folts v. Jones
green
1 sentence1996Although as a rule, the court will preserve, so far as possible, the interests of the succession, this rule yields to the paramount rule which makes the ward’s welfare the first consideration without regard to the rights of those who may have 4 eventually rights to succession.” Id. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Walker v. Walker
red
1 sentence1989The custodial parent must make arrangements for the continued care and well-being of the minor children, and the mental and physical condition of the custodial parent would of necessity have some affect on the well-being of the children. 656 S.W.2d at 16 , 18 As stated, the attitude and behavior of the mother in respect to visitation could and should be more amenable to the presently professed desire of the father to “get to know” his daughter. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Thompson v. Turner
green
2 sentences1955Templeton v. Stong, 182 Tenn. 591, 594 , 188 S. W. (2d) 560 ; McCord v. Ransom, 185 Tenn. 677 , 207 S. W. (2d) 581 ; LaRue v. Greene County Bank, 179 Tenn. 394 , 166 S. W. (2d) 1044 ; Thompson v. Turner, 186 Tenn. 241 , 209 S. W. (2d) 25 ; Quarles v. Arthur, 33 Tenn. App. 291 , 231 S. W. (2d) 589 ; Archer v. Culbertson, 28 Tenn. App. 52 , 185 S. W. (2d) 912 ; Hall v. Crocker, 192 Tenn. 506, 509 , 241 S. W. (2d) 548 ; Hutchison v. Board, 194 Tenn. 223 , 250 S. W. (2d) 82 . 1955Templeton v. Stong, 182 Tenn. 591, 594 , 188 S. W. (2d) 560 ; McCord v. Ransom, 185 Tenn. 677 , 207 S. W. (2d) 581 ; LaRue v. Greene County Bank, 179 Tenn. 394 , 166 S. W. (2d) 1044 ; Thompson v. Turner, 186 Tenn. 241 , 209 S. W. (2d) 25 ; Quarles v. Arthur, 33 Tenn. App. 291 , 231 S. W. (2d) 589 ; Archer v. Culbertson, 28 Tenn. App. 52 , 185 S. W. (2d) 912 ; Hall v. Crocker, 192 Tenn. 506, 509 , 241 S. W. (2d) 548 ; Hutchison v. Board, 194 Tenn. 223 , 250 S. W. (2d) 82 . | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Hall v. Crocker
green
2 sentences1955Templeton v. Stong, 182 Tenn. 591, 594 , 188 S. W. (2d) 560 ; McCord v. Ransom, 185 Tenn. 677 , 207 S. W. (2d) 581 ; LaRue v. Greene County Bank, 179 Tenn. 394 , 166 S. W. (2d) 1044 ; Thompson v. Turner, 186 Tenn. 241 , 209 S. W. (2d) 25 ; Quarles v. Arthur, 33 Tenn. App. 291 , 231 S. W. (2d) 589 ; Archer v. Culbertson, 28 Tenn. App. 52 , 185 S. W. (2d) 912 ; Hall v. Crocker, 192 Tenn. 506, 509 , 241 S. W. (2d) 548 ; Hutchison v. Board, 194 Tenn. 223 , 250 S. W. (2d) 82 . 1955Templeton v. Stong, 182 Tenn. 591, 594 , 188 S. W. (2d) 560 ; McCord v. Ransom, 185 Tenn. 677 , 207 S. W. (2d) 581 ; LaRue v. Greene County Bank, 179 Tenn. 394 , 166 S. W. (2d) 1044 ; Thompson v. Turner, 186 Tenn. 241 , 209 S. W. (2d) 25 ; Quarles v. Arthur, 33 Tenn. App. 291 , 231 S. W. (2d) 589 ; Archer v. Culbertson, 28 Tenn. App. 52 , 185 S. W. (2d) 912 ; Hall v. Crocker, 192 Tenn. 506, 509 , 241 S. W. (2d) 548 ; Hutchison v. Board, 194 Tenn. 223 , 250 S. W. (2d) 82 . | 1 | 1955–1955 |
McCord v. Ransom
green
2 sentences1955Templeton v. Stong, 182 Tenn. 591, 594 , 188 S. W. (2d) 560 ; McCord v. Ransom, 185 Tenn. 677 , 207 S. W. (2d) 581 ; LaRue v. Greene County Bank, 179 Tenn. 394 , 166 S. W. (2d) 1044 ; Thompson v. Turner, 186 Tenn. 241 , 209 S. W. (2d) 25 ; Quarles v. Arthur, 33 Tenn. App. 291 , 231 S. W. (2d) 589 ; Archer v. Culbertson, 28 Tenn. App. 52 , 185 S. W. (2d) 912 ; Hall v. Crocker, 192 Tenn. 506, 509 , 241 S. W. (2d) 548 ; Hutchison v. Board, 194 Tenn. 223 , 250 S. W. (2d) 82 . 1955Templeton v. Stong, 182 Tenn. 591, 594 , 188 S. W. (2d) 560 ; McCord v. Ransom, 185 Tenn. 677 , 207 S. W. (2d) 581 ; LaRue v. Greene County Bank, 179 Tenn. 394 , 166 S. W. (2d) 1044 ; Thompson v. Turner, 186 Tenn. 241 , 209 S. W. (2d) 25 ; Quarles v. Arthur, 33 Tenn. App. 291 , 231 S. W. (2d) 589 ; Archer v. Culbertson, 28 Tenn. App. 52 , 185 S. W. (2d) 912 ; Hall v. Crocker, 192 Tenn. 506, 509 , 241 S. W. (2d) 548 ; Hutchison v. Board, 194 Tenn. 223 , 250 S. W. (2d) 82 . | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Archer v. Culbertson
neutral
2 sentences1955Templeton v. Stong, 182 Tenn. 591, 594 , 188 S. W. (2d) 560 ; McCord v. Ransom, 185 Tenn. 677 , 207 S. W. (2d) 581 ; LaRue v. Greene County Bank, 179 Tenn. 394 , 166 S. W. (2d) 1044 ; Thompson v. Turner, 186 Tenn. 241 , 209 S. W. (2d) 25 ; Quarles v. Arthur, 33 Tenn. App. 291 , 231 S. W. (2d) 589 ; Archer v. Culbertson, 28 Tenn. App. 52 , 185 S. W. (2d) 912 ; Hall v. Crocker, 192 Tenn. 506, 509 , 241 S. W. (2d) 548 ; Hutchison v. Board, 194 Tenn. 223 , 250 S. W. (2d) 82 . 1955Templeton v. Stong, 182 Tenn. 591, 594 , 188 S. W. (2d) 560 ; McCord v. Ransom, 185 Tenn. 677 , 207 S. W. (2d) 581 ; LaRue v. Greene County Bank, 179 Tenn. 394 , 166 S. W. (2d) 1044 ; Thompson v. Turner, 186 Tenn. 241 , 209 S. W. (2d) 25 ; Quarles v. Arthur, 33 Tenn. App. 291 , 231 S. W. (2d) 589 ; Archer v. Culbertson, 28 Tenn. App. 52 , 185 S. W. (2d) 912 ; Hall v. Crocker, 192 Tenn. 506, 509 , 241 S. W. (2d) 548 ; Hutchison v. Board, 194 Tenn. 223 , 250 S. W. (2d) 82 . | 1 | 1955–1955 |
City of St. Louis v. Bissell
neutral
1 sentence1879R., 708; 34 Com., 195; 5 Halst., (N. J.) 20; 46 Mo., 157 , and other cases, and Rawles on Covenant, 4th ed., 218. | 1 | 1879–1879 |
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.