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.
20 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2026 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Guiliano v. Cleo, Inc.green2 sentences2021See Guiliano v. Cleo, Inc., 995 S.W.2d 88, 95 (Tenn. 1999); Union Planters Nat’l Bank v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 865 S.W.2d 907, 912 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993). 2019See Guiliano v. Cleo, Inc., 995 S.W.2d 88, 95 (Tenn. 1999). | 10 | 10 |
Allstate Insurance Co. v. Watsongreen2 sentences2021Co. v. Watson, 195 S.W.3d 609, 611 (Tenn. 2006) (“The interpretation of written agreements, like the lease at issue, is a matter of law that this Court reviews de novo on the record according no presumption of correctness to the trial court’s conclusions of law.”). 2011Co. v. Watson, 195 S.W.3d 609 (Tenn. 2006) as follows: The interpretation of written agreements . . . is a matter of law that this Court reviews de novo on the record according no presumption of correctness to the trial court's conclusions of law. | 7 | 8 |
Union Carbide Corp. v. Huddlestongreen2 sentences2017Union Carbide Corp. v. Huddleston, 854 S.W.2d 87, 91 (Tenn. 1993). 6 As our Supreme Court has explained with respect to the interpretation of contracts: The interpretation of written agreements . . . is a matter of law that this Court reviews de novo on the record according no presumption of correctness to the trial court’s conclusions of law. 2017Union Carbide Corp. v. Huddleston, 854 S.W.2d 87, 91 (Tenn. 1993). 6 As our Supreme Court has explained with respect to the interpretation of contracts: The interpretation of written agreements . . . is a matter of law that this Court reviews de novo on the record according no presumption of correctness to the trial court’s conclusions of law. | 2 | 2 |
Christenberry v. Tiptongreen1 sentence2025Co. v. Watson, 195 S.W.3d 609, 611 (Tenn. 2006)). “[A] cardinal rule of contract interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the parties.” Id. (citing Christenberry v. Tipton, 160 S.W.3d 487, 494 (Tenn. 2005)). - 10 - IV. | 1 | 1 |
Union Planters National Bank v. American Home Assurance Co.green1 sentence2021See Guiliano v. Cleo, Inc., 995 S.W.2d 88, 95 (Tenn. 1999); Union Planters Nat’l Bank v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 865 S.W.2d 907, 912 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Old Hickory Coaches, LLC v. Star Coach Rentals, Inc.
green
2 sentences2026Our standard of review for contract interpretation is “de novo on the record according no presumption of correctness to the trial court’s conclusion of law.” Old Hickory Coaches, LLC v. Star Coach Rentals, Inc., 652 S.W.3d 802 , 812 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1 The parties agreed that the applicable rules of law governing arbitration of their dispute were the FAA, the JAMS Rules, and that the “substantive law is the law of Tennessee.” Concerning the interplay between the FAA and the TUAA, our Supreme Court has observed “that the language of the judicial review provisions in the TUAA are substantially sim 2025Our standard of review for contract interpretation is “de novo on the record according no presumption of correctness to the trial court’s conclusion of law.” Old Hickory Coaches, LLC v. Star Coach Rentals, Inc., 652 S.W.3d 802 , 812 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021) (citing Allstate Ins. | 4 | 2025–2026 |
Pugh's Lawn Landscape Co. v. Jaycon Development Corp.
green
2 sentences2026To the “extent that these statutory schemes are different, the judicial review provisions in the TUAA are more restrictive.” See id. 2026Our standard of review for contract interpretation is “de novo on the record according no presumption of correctness to the trial court’s conclusion of law.” Old Hickory Coaches, LLC v. Star Coach Rentals, Inc., 652 S.W.3d 802 , 812 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1 The parties agreed that the applicable rules of law governing arbitration of their dispute were the FAA, the JAMS Rules, and that the “substantive law is the law of Tennessee.” Concerning the interplay between the FAA and the TUAA, our Supreme Court has observed “that the language of the judicial review provisions in the TUAA are substantially sim | 1 | 2026–2026 |
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.