15 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1946–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Roberts v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2019See generally Roberts v. United States, 445 U.S. 552, 559 (1980). 2005See Roberts v. United States, 445 U.S. 552, 559 , 100 S. Ct. 1358, 1364 (1980). | 2 | 2 |
Whaley v. Catlettgreen1 sentence2026The statute does not create “any new, independent cause of action in [survivors].” Jordan, 984 S.W.2d at 598 (quoting Whaley v. Catlett, 53 S.W. 131, 133 (Tenn. 1899)). | 1 | 1 |
Woo-Jun Ki v. Stategreen2 sentences2026Indeed, the “beneficiaries do not have an individual claim or cause of action for the wrongful death of the decedent.” Ki, 78 S.W.3d at 880 . 2026Ms. Anderson is not a separate claimant in her own right, see Ki, 78 S.W.3d at 880 (“beneficiaries do not have an individual claim or cause of action for the wrongful death of the decedent”); rather, the single, indivisible claim simply passed to Ms. Anderson once Mr. Page had been disqualified, the same way that the claim passed to Mr. Page upon the decedent’s death. | 1 | 1 |
Hogan v. Millsgreen1 sentence2019Hogan v. Mills, 168 S.W.3d at 753, 757 n.1 (Tenn. 2005) (“Any challenge to the Board of Paroles’ calculation of [the petitioner’s] effective sentence must be presented in an administrative proceeding, not a habeas corpus action.”). | 1 | 1 |
Kline v. Eyrichgreen1 sentence2011Instead, the beneficiaries may recover damages for their individual losses that arise pursuant to the right of action vested in the decedent.” Id. (citing Kline v. Eyrich, 69 S.W.3d 197, 207 (Tenn. 2002)). [Plaintiff] argues that she is not acting as the “legal representative of the estate,” but instead is acting individually on her own behalf. | 1 | 1 |
Beare Co. v. Olsengreen1 sentence2010The trial court agreed, stating that “the claims timely filed by both class representatives on their own behalf and all others similarly situated, challenging the Drug Tax on constitutional grounds, served as sufficient notice to the State’s tax collectors and other public officials as to what portion of the collected revenues were subject to challenge.” It also stated that “[t]o suggest that each taxpayer must file an individual claim so that the Department could appreciate the threat posed to the Tennessee treasury ignores reality, and only sets up unnecessary obstacles for those seeking the | 1 | 1 |
United States Department of State v. Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers, Inc.green2 sentences2009Agency, 581 F.3d 1169, 1175 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers v. Dep’t of State, 74 F.3d 1308 , 1311 (D.C.Cir.1996)), vacated on other grounds, 519 U.S. 1 , 117 S.Ct. 378 , 136 L.Ed.2d 1 (1996) (“[T]he government cannot escape the pitfalls of litigation by simply giving in to a plaintiff's individual claim without renouncing the challenged policy, at least where there is a reasonable chance of the dispute arising again between the government and the same plaintiff.”); State Highway Comm’n of Mo. v. Volpe, 479 F.2d 1099 , 1106 *208 (8th Cir.1973) (“[W]hen th 2009Agency, 581 F.3d 1169, 1175 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers v. Dep’t of State, 74 F.3d 1308 , 1311 (D.C.Cir.1996)), vacated on other grounds, 519 U.S. 1 , 117 S.Ct. 378 , 136 L.Ed.2d 1 (1996) (“[T]he government cannot escape the pitfalls of litigation by simply giving in to a plaintiff's individual claim without renouncing the challenged policy, at least where there is a reasonable chance of the dispute arising again between the government and the same plaintiff.”); State Highway Comm’n of Mo. v. Volpe, 479 F.2d 1099 , 1106 *208 (8th Cir.1973) (“[W]hen th | 1 | 1 |
Committee to Free the Fort Dix 38 v. Collinsgreen1 sentence2009Agency, 581 F.3d 1169, 1175 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers v. Dep’t of State, 74 F.3d 1308 , 1311 (D.C.Cir.1996)), vacated on other grounds, 519 U.S. 1 , 117 S.Ct. 378 , 136 L.Ed.2d 1 (1996) (“[T]he government cannot escape the pitfalls of litigation by simply giving in to a plaintiff's individual claim without renouncing the challenged policy, at least where there is a reasonable chance of the dispute arising again between the government and the same plaintiff.”); State Highway Comm’n of Mo. v. Volpe, 479 F.2d 1099 , 1106 *208 (8th Cir.1973) (“[W]hen th | 1 | 1 |
Rosemere Neighborhood Ass'n v. United States Environmental Protection Agencygreen1 sentence2009Agency, 581 F.3d 1169, 1175 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers v. Dep’t of State, 74 F.3d 1308 , 1311 (D.C.Cir.1996)), vacated on other grounds, 519 U.S. 1 , 117 S.Ct. 378 , 136 L.Ed.2d 1 (1996) (“[T]he government cannot escape the pitfalls of litigation by simply giving in to a plaintiff's individual claim without renouncing the challenged policy, at least where there is a reasonable chance of the dispute arising again between the government and the same plaintiff.”); State Highway Comm’n of Mo. v. Volpe, 479 F.2d 1099 , 1106 *208 (8th Cir.1973) (“[W]hen th | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Porterfield
green
2 sentences2006After the questioning of Watkins was completed, defense counsel stated, “I do not see anybody that I believe we need to do an individual hearing about other than Mr. Watkins.” In State v. Porterfield, 746 S.W.2d 441 (Tenn.1988), our supreme court approved a method of jury selection very similar to that used by the trial judge in this case. ■ In Porterfield , the defense counsel argued that the trial court improperly limited the “questioning of prospective jurors with respect to exposure to pre-trial publicity.” Id. at 446 . 2006After the questioning of Watkins was completed, defense counsel stated, “I do not see anybody that I believe we need to do an individual hearing about other than Mr. Watkins.” In State v. Porterfield, 746 S.W.2d 441 (Tenn.1988), our supreme court approved a method of jury selection very similar to that used by the trial judge in this case. ■ In Porterfield , the defense counsel argued that the trial court improperly limited the “questioning of prospective jurors with respect to exposure to pre-trial publicity.” Id. at 446 . | 2 | 2005–2006 |
Carroll v. Whitney
green
2 sentences2002Finally, LeBonheur argues that our holding in Carroll v. Whitney, 29 S.W.3d 14 (Tenn.2000), requires that LeBonheur receive the same immunity that thé residents receive. 2001Finally, LeBonheur argues that our holding in Carroll v. Whitney, 29 S.W.3d 14 (Tenn. 2000), requires that LeBonheur receive the same immunity that the residents receive. | 2 | 2001–2002 |
Jordan v. Baptist Three Rivers Hospital
green
1 sentence2026The statute does not create “any new, independent cause of action in [survivors].” Jordan, 984 S.W.2d at 598 (quoting Whaley v. Catlett, 53 S.W. 131, 133 (Tenn. 1899)). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Hall v. Tennessee Dressed Beef Co.
green
1 sentence2012Id. at 540 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Legal Assistance For Vietnamese Asylum Seekers; Thua Van Le v. Department Of State, Bureau Of Consular Affairs, Et Al.
green
1 sentence2009Agency, 581 F.3d 1169, 1175 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers v. Dep’t of State, 74 F.3d 1308 , 1311 (D.C.Cir.1996)), vacated on other grounds, 519 U.S. 1 , 117 S.Ct. 378 , 136 L.Ed.2d 1 (1996) (“[T]he government cannot escape the pitfalls of litigation by simply giving in to a plaintiff's individual claim without renouncing the challenged policy, at least where there is a reasonable chance of the dispute arising again between the government and the same plaintiff.”); State Highway Comm’n of Mo. v. Volpe, 479 F.2d 1099 , 1106 *208 (8th Cir.1973) (“[W]hen th | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State Highway Commission of Missouri v. Volpe
green
1 sentence2009Agency, 581 F.3d 1169, 1175 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers v. Dep’t of State, 74 F.3d 1308 , 1311 (D.C.Cir.1996)), vacated on other grounds, 519 U.S. 1 , 117 S.Ct. 378 , 136 L.Ed.2d 1 (1996) (“[T]he government cannot escape the pitfalls of litigation by simply giving in to a plaintiff's individual claim without renouncing the challenged policy, at least where there is a reasonable chance of the dispute arising again between the government and the same plaintiff.”); State Highway Comm’n of Mo. v. Volpe, 479 F.2d 1099 , 1106 *208 (8th Cir.1973) (“[W]hen th | 1 | 2009–2009 |
cluster 664686
green
1 sentence2006However, while the cases cited by Appellant in her brief on appeal set forth the proposition that courts may not provide relief to an individual for a claim based on the CPSA, see, e.g., Avery v. Gas Prods., Inc., 18 F.3d 448 (7th Cir. 1994); Penn. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State Ex Rel. Kiritsis v. Marion Probate Court
green
2 sentences1983In holding that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is not automatically triggered by the possibility of the deprivation of liberty, the court said: [I]t is only where a proceeding seeks to impose a criminal or quasi-criminal sanction upon an individual for violation of its law that a proceeding can properly be labeled ‘criminal.’ 381 N.E.2d at 1247 . 1983The court went on further to say that it must balance the individual’s liberty against the state’s interest in providing treatment for the mentally ill and protection of its citizens from such persons. 381 N.E.2d at 1248 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Fort v. Dixie Oil Co.
neutral
2 sentences1946This is as much as an individual can claim in *499 such a controversy with the state, and snch proceedings are according to the law of the land.” Other more recent cases holding that payment under protest of this class of taxes is a condition precedent to the right to contest such demands by the State are Fort v. Dixie Oil Co., 170 Tenn. 183 , 93 S. W. (2d) 1260 , and Lyons, etc., v. Lay et al., 179 Tenn. 388 , 166 S. W. (2d) 778, 779 , in which Mr. Justice Prewitt, speaking for the Court, said: “The payment under the protest statute is applicable in every ease, even though in particular insta 1946This is as much as an individual can claim in *499 such a controversy with the state, and snch proceedings are according to the law of the land.” Other more recent cases holding that payment under protest of this class of taxes is a condition precedent to the right to contest such demands by the State are Fort v. Dixie Oil Co., 170 Tenn. 183 , 93 S. W. (2d) 1260 , and Lyons, etc., v. Lay et al., 179 Tenn. 388 , 166 S. W. (2d) 778, 779 , in which Mr. Justice Prewitt, speaking for the Court, said: “The payment under the protest statute is applicable in every ease, even though in particular insta | 1 | 1946–1946 |
Lyons v. Lay
green
2 sentences1946This is as much as an individual can claim in *499 such a controversy with the state, and snch proceedings are according to the law of the land.” Other more recent cases holding that payment under protest of this class of taxes is a condition precedent to the right to contest such demands by the State are Fort v. Dixie Oil Co., 170 Tenn. 183 , 93 S. W. (2d) 1260 , and Lyons, etc., v. Lay et al., 179 Tenn. 388 , 166 S. W. (2d) 778, 779 , in which Mr. Justice Prewitt, speaking for the Court, said: “The payment under the protest statute is applicable in every ease, even though in particular insta 1946This is as much as an individual can claim in *499 such a controversy with the state, and snch proceedings are according to the law of the land.” Other more recent cases holding that payment under protest of this class of taxes is a condition precedent to the right to contest such demands by the State are Fort v. Dixie Oil Co., 170 Tenn. 183 , 93 S. W. (2d) 1260 , and Lyons, etc., v. Lay et al., 179 Tenn. 388 , 166 S. W. (2d) 778, 779 , in which Mr. Justice Prewitt, speaking for the Court, said: “The payment under the protest statute is applicable in every ease, even though in particular insta | 1 | 1946–1946 |
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.