23 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1926–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kline v. Eyrichgreen2 sentences2026See Kennedy v. Kennedy, No. M2016-01635-COA-R3-CV, 2017 WL 2713632 , at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2017) (“Should a dispute arise as to the reasonableness of the fee awarded, then ‘in the absence of any proof on the issue of reasonableness, it is incumbent upon the [party challenging the fee] to pursue the correction of that error in the trial court by insisting upon a hearing upon that issue.’” (quoting Kline v. Eyrich, 69 S.W.3d 197, 210 (Tenn. 2002))); see also Moses v. Dirghangi, 430 S.W.3d 371, 381 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (“It is well settled that issues not raised at the trial level are c 2019“Should a dispute arise as to the reasonableness of the fee awarded, then ‘in the absence of any proof on the issue of reasonableness, it is incumbent upon the [party challenging the fee] to pursue the correction of that error in the trial court by insisting upon a hearing upon that issue.”’ Kline v. Eyrich, 69 S.W.3d 197, 210 (Tenn. 2002) (quoting Wilson Mgmt. | 6 | 9 |
Wilson Management Co. v. Star Distributors Co.green2 sentences2024Should a dispute arise as to the reasonableness of the fee awarded, then “in the absence of any proof on the issue of reasonableness, it is incumbent upon the [party challenging the fee] to pursue the correction of that error in the trial court by insisting upon a hearing upon that issue.” See id. (emphasis added). 2019“Should a dispute arise as to the reasonableness of the fee awarded, then ‘in the absence of any proof on the issue of reasonableness, it is incumbent upon the [party challenging the fee] to pursue the correction of that error in the trial court by insisting upon a hearing upon that issue.”’ Kline v. Eyrich, 69 S.W.3d 197, 210 (Tenn. 2002) (quoting Wilson, 745 S.W.2d at 873 ). | 2 | 7 |
Brown v. Consolidation Coal Companygreen2 sentences2001The Court found that the award of the correct weekly compensation rate was “of such overriding importance to employer and employee alike, that, in those cases where there is no dispute as to the date controlling the compensation rates, authority is vested by Rule 60.02(5) for the correction of error therein . . . .” Id. 1991In providing the employer relief under Rule 60.02(5), T.R.Civ.P., the Court held, [T]he award of the correct workmen’s compensation rates applicable to any given suit under said Act is of such overriding importance to employer and employee alike, that, in those cases where there is no dispute as to the date controlling the compensation rates, authority is vested by Rule 60.02(5) for the correction of error therein on motion made within a reasonable time.... 518 S.W.2d at 238 (emphasis added). | 1 | 4 |
Pamela Moses v. Jayanta K. Dirghangi, MDgreen1 sentence2026See Kennedy v. Kennedy, No. M2016-01635-COA-R3-CV, 2017 WL 2713632 , at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2017) (“Should a dispute arise as to the reasonableness of the fee awarded, then ‘in the absence of any proof on the issue of reasonableness, it is incumbent upon the [party challenging the fee] to pursue the correction of that error in the trial court by insisting upon a hearing upon that issue.’” (quoting Kline v. Eyrich, 69 S.W.3d 197, 210 (Tenn. 2002))); see also Moses v. Dirghangi, 430 S.W.3d 371, 381 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (“It is well settled that issues not raised at the trial level are c | 1 | 1 |
Steven Waters v. Reagan Farr, Commissioner of Revenue for the State of Tennesseegreen1 sentence2026See Kennedy v. Kennedy, No. M2016-01635-COA-R3-CV, 2017 WL 2713632 , at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2017) (“Should a dispute arise as to the reasonableness of the fee awarded, then ‘in the absence of any proof on the issue of reasonableness, it is incumbent upon the [party challenging the fee] to pursue the correction of that error in the trial court by insisting upon a hearing upon that issue.’” (quoting Kline v. Eyrich, 69 S.W.3d 197, 210 (Tenn. 2002))); see also Moses v. Dirghangi, 430 S.W.3d 371, 381 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (“It is well settled that issues not raised at the trial level are c | 1 | 1 |
Moran v. WILLENSKYgreen1 sentence2017“Should a dispute arise as to the reasonableness of the fee awarded, then in the absence of any proof on the issue of reasonableness, it is incumbent upon the party challenging the fee to pursue the correction of that error in the trial court by insisting upon a hearing on that issue, or to convince the appellate courts that he was denied the opportunity to do so through no fault of his own.” Moran v. Willensky, 339 S.W.3d 651, 664 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010); see Kline [v. Eyrich], 69 S.W.3d [197,] 210 [(Tenn. 2002)]. | 1 | 1 |
Hessmer v. Hessmergreen1 sentence2014Jackson v. Lanphere, No. M2010-01401-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 3566978 , at *3 (Tenn. Ct. 2 The Department of Correction’s brief also fails to include any statement as to the standard of review, as required by Rule 27(a)(7)(B) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. -4- App. Aug.12, 2011) (quoting Hessmer v. Hessmer, 138 S.W.3d 901, 903 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003)). | 1 | 1 |
Varley v. Varleygreen1 sentence1999McGrath v. Mitchell, No. 89-10-II, 1989 WL 57732 , at *7 (Tenn. App. June 1, 1989); see also Varley v. Varley, 934 S.W.2d 659, 667 (Tenn. App. 1996). | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Elgingreen1 sentence1926Taylor v. Elgin, 140 Tenn., 602, 610, 617, 622 , 205 S. W., 428 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Salvatore Cirami, Salvatore Cirami & Margaret Cirami
green
1 sentence2001In United States v. Cirami, 563 F.2d 26 (2d Cir. 1977), the federal appellate court held that relief under Federal Rule of Procedure 60(b)(6), which is identical to Rule 60.02(5) of the Tennessee Rules, was warranted in a case in which the defendants’ attorney suffered from a mental illness and disappeared unexpectedly, preventing the defendants from filing a response to a summary judgment motion. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Hill v. Lockhart
green
1 sentence1997Id. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Gaines v. Gaines
green
1 sentence1991As found in Gaines , “the court in Brown clearly intimates that ‘any other reason’ under Rule 60.02(5) is to be defined as a reason of ‘overriding importance.’ ” Gaines, 599 S.W.2d at 564 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Green Meadow Park Inc. v. American Heritage Life Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence1977Co., Tenn.App., 540 S.W.2d 267 , approving an extension granted after 30 days had elapsed as being the correction of an error in the original order. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.