notice pleading standard (Tennessee) · Go Syfert
← Tennessee issues

notice pleading standard in Tennessee

18 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2011–2025 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc.green
tenn · 2011 · cited in 13 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2011–2025
2 sentences

2025The statute provides: [I]n a civil proceeding, where a trial court grants a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a 2 “Under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 8, Tennessee follows a liberal notice pleading standard which recognizes that the primary purpose of pleadings is to provide notice of the issues presented to the opposing party and court.” Webb, 346 S.W.3d at 426 (internal citation omitted). - 10 - claim upon which relief may be granted, the court shall award the party or parties against whom the dismissed claims were pendin

2022Mr. Gure argues that the City’s amended complaint neither alleged “a precise speed” nor “a precise speed zone.” But Tennessee “follows a liberal notice pleading standard.” Webb, 346 S.W.3d at 426 .

1113
Abshure v. Methodist Healthcare-Memphis Hospitalsgreen
tenn · 2010 · cited in 7 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2011–2022
2 sentences

2022The “essential purpose of a pleading is to give notice of the issues to be tried so that the opposing party will be able to prepare for trial.” Abshure v. Methodist Healthcare-Memphis Hosps., 325 S.W.3d 98, 103 (Tenn. 2010).

2018Tennessee, however, “follows a liberal notice pleading standard, which recognizes that the primary purpose of pleadings is to provide notice of the issues presented to the opposing party and court.” Id. (citing Abshure v. Methodist Healthcare-Memphis Hosps., 325 S.W.3d 98, 103 (Tenn. 2010) (internal citations omitted)).

77
Hammett v. Vogue, Inc.green
tenn · 1942 · cited in 2 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2014–2016
2 sentences

2016Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 426-27 (Tenn. 2011). ―The object and purpose of any pleading is to give notice of the nature of the wrongs and injuries complained of with reasonable certainty, and notice of the defenses that will be interposed, and to acquaint the court with the real issues to be tried.‖ Hammett v. Vogue, Inc., 165 S.W.2d 577, 579 (Tenn. 1942).

2014“Our state’s notice pleading regime is firmly established and longstanding; this Court recognized well before the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure were adopted that ‘[t]he object and purpose of any pleading is to give notice of the nature of the wrongs and injuries complained of with reasonable certainty, and notice of the defenses that will be interposed, and to acquaint the court with the real issues to be tried.”’ Id. (quoting Hammett v. Vogue, Inc., 165 S.W.2d 577, 579 (Tenn. 1942)).

22
Trau-Med of America, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co.green
tenn · 2002 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
1 sentence

2016Co., 71 S.W.3d 691, 696 (Tenn. 2002); see also Webb, 346 S.W.3d at 426 (―Tennessee follows a liberal notice pleading standard, which recognizes that the primary purpose of pleadings is to provide notice of the issues presented to the opposing party and court.‖).

11
McCurry v. Chevy Chase Bank, FSBgreen
wash · 2010 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
1 sentence

2011The Washington Supreme Court, in a recent decision rejecting the federal plausibility standard, described it as “a drastic change in court procedure.” McCurry v. Chevy Chase Bank, FSB, 169 Wash.2d 96 , 233 P.3d 861, 863 (2010) (en banc).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Stein v. Davidson Hotel Co. green
tenn · 1997
2 sentences

2012Stein, 945 S.W.2d at 716 ; see also Webb, 346 S.W.3d at 426 (observing that “Tennessee follows a liberal notice pleading standard, which recognizes that the primary purpose of pleadings is to provide notice of the issues presented to the opposing party and court” (citation omitted)).

2012Stein, 945 S.W.2d at 716 ; see also Webb, 346 S.W.3d at 426 (observing that “Tennessee follows a liberal notice pleading standard, which recognizes that the primary purpose of pleadings is to provide notice of the issues presented to the opposing party and court” (citation omitted)).

32011–2012
Leach v. Taylor green
tenn · 2004
2 sentences

2016In so doing, we refer to the following language in Webb: Under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 8, Tennessee follows a liberal notice pleading standard, see Leach, 124 S.W.3d at 92-93 , which recognizes that the primary purpose of pleadings is to provide notice of the issues presented to the opposing party and court.

2011Under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 8, Tennessee follows a liberal notice pleading standard, see Leach, 124 S.W.3d at 92-93 , which recognizes that the primary purpose of pleadings is to provide notice of the issues presented to the opposing party and court.

22011–2016
Crews v. Buckman Laboratories International, Inc. green
tenn · 2002
1 sentence

2018Tennessee, however, “follows a liberal notice pleading standard, which recognizes that the primary purpose of pleadings is to provide notice of the issues presented to the opposing party and court.” Id. (citing Abshure v. Methodist Healthcare-Memphis Hosps., 325 S.W.3d 98, 103 (Tenn. 2010) (internal citations omitted)).

12018–2018
McCurry v. Chevy Chase Bank, FSB green
wash · 2010
1 sentence

2011The Washington Supreme Court, in a recent decision rejecting the federal plausibility standard, described it as “a drastic change in court procedure.” McCurry v. Chevy Chase Bank, FSB, 169 Wash.2d 96 , 233 P.3d 861, 863 (2010) (en banc).

12011–2011

Where else courts name it

AZ 28 (2008–2026) OH 27 (1995–2026) NY 22 (2020–2026) TN 18 (2011–2025) DE 13 (1996–2026) NE 13 (2017–2025) TX 12 (1984–2025) NC 8 (2008–2025) IL 6 (2004–2022) HI 6 (2019–2026) WI 5 (2005–2024) ME 5 (2022–2024) VI 5 (2017–2026) CO 4 (2001–2015) NV 4 (2014–2015) WA 4 (2013–2016) GA 4 (2012–2022) VT 3 (2014–2026) MA 3 (2006–2026) MO 3 (2003–2007) KS 3 (2005–2024) UT 3 (1989–2014) MN 3 (2014–2015) IN 3 (1996–2017) AL 2 (2004–2007) OK 2 (2009–2020) RI 2 (2010–2011) AK 2 (2021–2023) ID 2 (2020–2020) NM 2 (2015–2023) KY 2 (2021–2025) MS 2 (2014–2018) IA 2 (2019–2023) WV 2 (2024–2025) SC 2 (2001–2018) VA 2 (2023–2023)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check