15 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lanegreen2 sentences2011The reasoning behind this requirement for additional findings “arises from the fact that of all the categories for consecutive sentencing, the dangerous offender category is the most subjective and hardest to apply.” State v. Lane, 3 S.W.3d 456, 461 (Tenn. 1999). 2011The reasoning behind this requirement for additional findings “arises from the fact that of all the categories for consecutive sentencing, the dangerous offender category is the most subjective and hardest to apply.” State v. Lane, 3 S.W.3d 456, 461 (Tenn. 1999). | 3 | 3 |
Dale v. Hartmangreen2 sentences2007Dale v. Hartman, 157 Tenn. 60 , 6 S.W.2d 319, 321 (1928). 2007Dale v. Hartman, 157 Tenn. 60 , 6 S.W.2d 319, 321 (1928). | 2 | 2 |
Melton v. Andersongreen2 sentences1997In Melton v. Anderson, 222 S.W.2d 666, 669 (Tenn. App. 1948), this Court discussed the reasoning behind the doctrine: A general statement of the doctrine of judicial estoppel is that where one states on oath in former litigation, either in a pleading or in a deposition or on oral testimony, a given fact as true, he will not be permitted to deny that fact in subsequent litigation, although the parties may not be the same. *** The doctrine in no sense depends upon prejudice to the party invoking it. 1997In Melton v. Anderson, 222 S.W.2d 666, 669 (Tenn. App. 1948), this Court discussed the reasoning behind the doctrine: A general statement of the doctrine of judicial estoppel is that where one states on oath in former litigation, either in a pleading or in a deposition or on oral testimony, a given fact as true, he will not be permitted to deny that fact in subsequent litigation, although the parties may not be the same. *** The doctrine in no sense depends upon prejudice to the party invoking it. | 2 | 2 |
Hazel Cobb v. Pete Gilmergreen1 sentence2008Ms. Phebus concedes, however, that this is a matter of first impression in Tennessee because this state has not yet explicitly adopted what she calls “the universal rule.” The reasoning behind the rule is explained as follows in the case of Cobb v. Gilmer, 365 F.2d 931, 933 (D.C. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ladd Ex Rel. Ladd v. Honda Motor Co.
green
2 sentences2002This Court thoroughly analyzed the reasoning behind this requirement for accuracy in jury instructions in Ladd v. Honda Motor Co., LTD, 939 S.W.2d 83 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). 2002This Court thoroughly analyzed the reasoning behind this requirement for accuracy in jury instructions in Ladd v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., 939 S.W.2d 83 (Tenn.Ct.App.1996). | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Jean Dedmon v. Debbie Steelman
green
1 sentence2025Dedmon, 535 S.W.3d at 443 (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 920A, cmt. b (1979)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Alex v. Armstrong
green
1 sentence2012The reasoning behind this rule is that “ ‘a vicious or dangerous disposition or propensity may consist of mere mischievousness or playfulness of the animal, which, because of its size or nature, might lead to injury, for it is the act of the animal, rather than its state of mind, which charges that owner or keeper with liability.’ ” Id. at 115 (quoting 4 Am.Jur.2d, Animals, Section 86). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Reid v. State
green
1 sentence2011Reid, 197 S.W.3d at 704 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Massey v. Holmes
green
1 sentence2002Massey, 227 S.W.2d at 26 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Williams v. Jones
green
2 sentences1974Tisdale v. Tisdale (1855) 34 Tenn. 596 ; Williams v. Jones (1963) 54 Tenn.App. 189 , 388 S.W.2d 665 . 1974Tisdale v. Tisdale (1855) 34 Tenn. 596 ; Williams v. Jones (1963) 54 Tenn.App. 189 , 388 S.W.2d 665 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Tisdale v. Tisdale
green
1 sentence1974Tisdale v. Tisdale (1855) 34 Tenn. 596 ; Williams v. Jones (1963) 54 Tenn.App. 189 , 388 S.W.2d 665 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.