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.
107 Tennessee opinions name it 4 courts 1976–2024 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
McCarley v. West Quality Food Servicegreen2 sentences2015When faced with a properly supported motion for summary judgment, “[t]he nonmoving party must then establish the existence of the essential elements of the claim.” McCarley v. West Quality Food Serv., 960 S.W.2d 585, 588 (Tenn.1998). 2014If the moving party does make a properly supported motion, “[t]he non-moving party must then establish the existence of the essential elements of the claim.” McCarley v. West Quality Food Serv., 960 S.W.2d 585, 588 (Tenn. 1998). | 14 | 30 |
Staples v. CBL & Associates, Inc.green2 sentences2010If the moving party shifts the burden of production, “the non-moving party may not simply rest upon the pleadings, but must offer proof to establish the existence of the essential elements of the claim.”1 Staples v. CBL & Assocs., Inc., 15 S.W.3d 83, 89 (Tenn. 2000). 2004If the moving party successfully negates a claimed basis for the action, the non- moving party may not simply rest upon the pleadings, but must offer proof to establish the existence of the essential elements of the claim. -3- Staples, 15 S.W.3d at 88-89 (citations omitted). | 11 | 31 |
Blair v. Allied Maintenance Corp.green2 sentences2005S., 844 S.W.2d 642, 645 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992) (citing Blair v. Allied Maintenance Corp., 756 S.W.2d 267, 269-70 (Tenn.Ct. 2005In such case, if the plaintiff does not produce evidence that “establish[es] the essential elements of his claim, then summary judgment is appropriate.” Click v. Mangione, No. M1999-00129-COA-R3-CV, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 441 , at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 7, 2000) (citing Blair v. Allied Maintenance Corp., 756 S.W.2d 267, 269-70 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988)). | 7 | 7 |
Byrd v. Hallgreen2 sentences2013“If the moving party is unable to make the required showing, then its motion for summary judgment will fail.” Id. (citing Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208, 215 (Tenn. 1993)). -3- If the moving party does make a properly supported motion, “[t]he non-moving party must then establish the existence of the essential elements of the claim.” McCarley v. West Quality Food Serv., 960 S.W.2d 585, 588 (Tenn. 1998). 2008If the moving party -4- negates an essential element of the claim or establishes an affirmative defense, the non-moving party must, to avoid losing on summary judgment, submit evidence sufficient to “establish the existence of the essential elements of the claim.” Id. | 4 | 28 |
Blair v. West Town Mallgreen2 sentences2017Town Mall, 130 S.W.3d 761 (Tenn. 2004)). 2013“If the moving party is unable to make the required showing, then its motion for summary judgment will fail.” Id. (citing Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208, 215 (Tenn. 1993)). -3- If the moving party does make a properly supported motion, “[t]he non-moving party must then establish the existence of the essential elements of the claim.” McCarley v. West Quality Food Serv., 960 S.W.2d 585, 588 (Tenn. 1998). | 3 | 28 |
Nelson v. Martingreen2 sentences2016A claim for intentional interference with employment “contemplate[s] a three-party relationship—the plaintiff as employee, the corporation as employer, and the defendants as procurers or inducers.” Nelson v. Martin, 958 S.W.2d 643, 647 (Tenn. 1997). 2011A claim for intentional interference with employment “contemplate[s] a three-party relationship — the plaintiff as employee, the corporation as employer, and the defendants as procurers or inducers.” Nelson v. Martin, 958 S.W.2d 643, 647 (Tenn.1997). | 3 | 3 |
Finister v. Humboldt General Hospital, Inc.green2 sentences2003Finister v. Humboldt General Hosp., Inc., 970 S.W.2d 435, 438 (Tenn. 1998). 2000Finister v. Humboldt General Hosp., Inc., 970 S.W.2d 435, 437-438 (Tenn. 1998). | 3 | 3 |
Horton v. Hughesgreen2 sentences2015Horton v. Hughes, 971 S.W.2d 957, 959 (Tenn. Ct. App.1998). 2014Horton v. Hughes, 971 S.W.2d 957, 959 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). | 2 | 2 |
Ladd v. Roane Hosiery, Inc.green2 sentences2011This Court has previously set forth the requirements for a claim of intentional interference with employment: The essential elements of a claim for intentional interference with employment are “that the defendant intentionally and without justification procured the discharge of the employee in question.” Ladd v. Roane Hosiery, Inc., 556 S.W.2d 758, 760 (Tenn.1977). 2001The essential elements of a claim for intentional interference with employment are “that the defendant intentionally and without justification procured the discharge of the employee in question.” Ladd v. Roane Hosiery, Inc., 556 S.W.2d 758, 760 (Tenn. 1977). | 2 | 2 |
Robinson v. Omergreen2 sentences2015Robinson, 952 S.W.2d at 427 . 2000Staples v. CBL & Associates, Inc., No. E1997-00033-SC-R11CV, 2000 WL 291431, at *4 (Tenn. Mar. 20, 2000) citing McCarley v. West Quality Food Serv., 960 S.W.2d 585, 588 (Tenn.1998); Robinson v. Omer, 952 S.W.2d 423, 426 (Tenn.1997). | 1 | 2 |
White v. Methodist Hospital Southgreen2 sentences2005S., 844 S.W.2d 642, 645 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992) (citing Blair v. Allied Maintenance Corp., 756 S.W.2d 267, 269-70 (Tenn.Ct. 1996White, 844 S.W.2d at 645 . | 1 | 2 |
Kincaid v. SouthTrust Bankgreen1 sentence2024Snyder v. Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsburg, P.A., 986 S.W.2d 550, 557 (Tenn. 1999) (“[W]e conclude that the plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege one of the - 11 - essential elements of abuse of process—an improper act in the use of process; therefore the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”); Goetz v. Autin, No. W2015-00063-COA-R3-CV, 2016 WL 537818 , at *9 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2016) (“Because the amended complaint fails to allege one of the essential elements of a claim for abuse of process, it fails to state a claim for abuse of process.”); K | 1 | 1 |
Bell Ex Rel. Snyder v. ICARD, ETC.green1 sentence2024Snyder v. Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsburg, P.A., 986 S.W.2d 550, 557 (Tenn. 1999) (“[W]e conclude that the plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege one of the - 11 - essential elements of abuse of process—an improper act in the use of process; therefore the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”); Goetz v. Autin, No. W2015-00063-COA-R3-CV, 2016 WL 537818 , at *9 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2016) (“Because the amended complaint fails to allege one of the essential elements of a claim for abuse of process, it fails to state a claim for abuse of process.”); K | 1 | 1 |
Christian v. Lapidusgreen1 sentence2021Christian v. Lapidus, 833 S.W.2d 71, 73 (Tenn. 1992).2 This Court has previously acknowledged that the question of whether the underlying proceedings terminated in favor of the plaintiff “involve[s] mixed questions of law and fact that present no jury issues unless there are disputed facts.” Sewell v. Par Cable, Inc., No. 87-266-II, 1988 WL 112915 , at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 1988). | 1 | 1 |
Whitehaven Community Baptist Church v. Hollowaygreen1 sentence2021Freeman Indus., LLC., 172 S.W.3d at 525 (citing Paschall’s Inc., 407 S.W.2d at 155 ; Whitehaven Cmty. Baptist Church, 973 S.W.2d 592, 596 (Tenn. 1998)) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Tindall v. Waring Park Ass'ngreen1 sentence2015See Tindall, supra, at 93 7. | 1 | 1 |
Castelli v. Liengreen1 sentence2015Castelli v. Lien, 910 S.W.2d 420, 427 (Tenn. Ct. App.1995) (internal citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Mary C. Smith v. UHS of Lakeside, Inc.green1 sentence2014See Smith v. UHS of Lakeside, Inc., --- S.W.3d ----, 2014 WL 3429204 (Tenn. 2014). | 1 | 1 |
Elchlepp v. Hatfieldgreen1 sentence2011See Elchlepp, 294 S.W.3d at 150 ; see also Estate of Acuff, 56 S.W.3d at 530-31 . | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Acuff v. O'Lingergreen1 sentence2011See Elchlepp, 294 S.W.3d at 150 ; see also Estate of Acuff, 56 S.W.3d at 530-31 . | 1 | 1 |
Bowman v. Henardgreen1 sentence2010Metts at * 3 (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-115 (a); Bowman v. Henard, 547 S.W.2d 527, 531 (Tenn.1977)). | 1 | 1 |
Fitts v. Armsgreen1 sentence2008To effectively refute a claim of malpractice, the defendants “must present facts rebutting the allegations of [the] complaint as to at least one of the three statutory elements for medical malpractice actions.” Fitts v. Arms, 133 S.W.3d 187, 190 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). | 1 | 1 |
Godbee v. Dimickgreen1 sentence2007Godbee v. Dimick, 213 S.W.3d 865, 882 (Tenn.Ct.App.2006). | 1 | 1 |
| Mooney v. Sneedgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Warren v. Estate of Kirkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kelley v. Middle Tennessee Emergency Physicians, P.C.green | 1 | 1 |
| City State Bank v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Freeman Industries, LLC v. Eastman Chemical Co.
green
1 sentence2021Freeman Indus., LLC., 172 S.W.3d at 525 (citing Paschall’s Inc., 407 S.W.2d at 155 ; Whitehaven Cmty. Baptist Church, 973 S.W.2d 592, 596 (Tenn. 1998)) (emphasis added). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
White v. Premier Medical Group
green
1 sentence2017“The essential elements of the defense of superseding cause are as follows: (1) the harmful 'effects of the superseding cause must have occurred after the original negligence; (2) the superseding cause must not have been brought about by the original negligence; (3) the superseding cause must actively work to bring about a result which would not have followed from the original negligence; and (4) the superseding cause must not have been reasonably foreseen by the original negligent party.” 12 White, 254 S.W.3d at 417 (citing Godbee, 213 S.W.3d at 882). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Vicky Berry v. Houchen's Market of TN, Inc. and J. D. Easterly Properties
green
1 sentence2017At the summary judgment stage, “[i]f the moving party successfully negates a claimed basis for the action, the non-moving party may not simply rest upon the pleadings, but must offer proof to establish the existence of the essential elements of the claim.” Berry, 253 S.W.3d at 145 (quoting Blair v. W. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Audio Visual Artistry v. Stephen Tanzer
green
1 sentence2014As such, the trial court’s ruling is not “readily ascertainable.” Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Hannan v. Alltel Publishing Co.
red
1 sentence2012Therefore, we must apply the summary judgment standard set forth in Hannan v. Alltel Publ’g Co., 270 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2008), and its progeny. -12- If the moving party does make a properly supported motion, “[t]he non-moving party must then establish the existence of the essential elements of the claim.” McCarley v. West Quality Food Serv., 960 S.W.2d 585, 588 (Tenn. 1998)). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Sallee v. Barrett
green
1 sentence2011Issues Presented The City broadly presents the following issues, as we perceive them, for our consideration on appeal: (1) whether the Tennessee Supreme Court erred in Sallee v. Barrett, 171 S.W.3d 822 (Tenn.2005), when it concluded governmental entities do not retain immunity under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-20-205(2) from suits for injuries incurred as the result of a negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (2) whether the trial court erred when it concluded the plaintiffs proved the essential elements of their claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Moon v. St. Thomas Hospital
green
1 sentence2010Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-115 (b); Moon, 983 S.W.2d at 229 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Todd v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.