14 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gordon v. Greenview Hospital, Inc.green2 sentences2014Gordon, 300 S.W.3d at 648-49 (footnote omitted). 2012Id. at 647-49 (internal citations omitted). | 4 | 4 |
In Re Bridgestone/Firestonegreen1 sentence2025Luna, 208 S.W.3d at 406 ; compare In re Bridgestone/Firestone, 138 S.W.3d 202, 207 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (tying relevant considerations in forum non conveniens context to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947)), with Crouch Ry. | 1 | 1 |
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbertred1 sentence2025Luna, 208 S.W.3d at 406 ; compare In re Bridgestone/Firestone, 138 S.W.3d 202, 207 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (tying relevant considerations in forum non conveniens context to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947)), with Crouch Ry. | 1 | 1 |
Arnold v. City of Chattanoogagreen2 sentences2024See Arnold v. City of Chattanooga, 19 S.W.3d 779, 787 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (“The scope of the waiver by disclosure is defined by the fairness doctrine, which aims to prevent the prejudice and distortion that may be caused by one party’s selective disclose of otherwise protected information.”) (citation omitted). 2024See Arnold v. City of Chattanooga, 19 S.W.3d 779, 787 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (“The scope of the waiver by disclosure is defined by the fairness doctrine, which aims to prevent the prejudice and distortion that may be caused by one party’s selective disclose of otherwise protected information.”) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Durfee v. Durfee & Canning, Inc.green1 sentence2019The fairness test focuses on the unfairness of a fiduciary taking for his personal benefit an opportunity “‘when the interest of the corporation justly call[s] for protection.’” Durfee v. Durfee & Canning, 80 N.E.2d 522, 529 (Mass. 1948) (quoting Henry Winthrop Ballatine, BALLATINE ON CORPORATIONS 204-05 (Rev. | 1 | 1 |
cluster 774608green1 sentence2017Orgs., 262 F.3d at 567). | 1 | 1 |
Reis v. Hazelett Strip-Casting Corp.green1 sentence2014“When conducting a fair price inquiry as part of the entire fairness- standard of review, the court asks whether the transaction was one ‘that a reasonable seller, under all of the circumstances, would regard as within a, range of fair 'value; one that such a seller could reasonably accept.’ ” Reis v. Hazelett Strip-Casting Corp., 28 A.3d 442, 466 (Del.Ch.2011) (internal citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Mills Acquisition Co. v. MacMillan, Inc.green1 sentence2014The “fair dealing”, element of the entire fairness analysis “also embraces the duty of candor owed by corporate fiduciaries to disclose all material information relevant to corporate decisions from which they may derive a personal benefit.” Id. (quoting Mills Acquisition Co. v. Macmillan, Inc., 559 A,2d 1261, 1280 (Del.1989)). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Telectronics Pacing Systems, Inc.green1 sentence2009See, e.g., Third Nat'l Bank in Nashville v. WEDGE Group Inc., 882 F.2d 1087, 1094 (6th Cir.1989) (Keith, J., concurring); In re Telectronics Pacing Sys., Inc., 953 F.Supp. 909, 918-19 (S.D.Ohio 1997) (noting that reliance on separate corporate formalities does not fit in with the fairness inquiry of International Shoe and articulating a test based on merger (a “sufficiently substantial relationship to justify the court’s jurisdiction[,] such as ownership, control and integrated management”) and attribution (where the subsidiary acts on behalf of the parent) as the standard for exercising juris | 1 | 1 |
Third National Bank in Nashville v. Wedge Group Incorporatedgreen1 sentence2009See, e.g., Third Nat'l Bank in Nashville v. WEDGE Group Inc., 882 F.2d 1087, 1094 (6th Cir.1989) (Keith, J., concurring); In re Telectronics Pacing Sys., Inc., 953 F.Supp. 909, 918-19 (S.D.Ohio 1997) (noting that reliance on separate corporate formalities does not fit in with the fairness inquiry of International Shoe and articulating a test based on merger (a “sufficiently substantial relationship to justify the court’s jurisdiction[,] such as ownership, control and integrated management”) and attribution (where the subsidiary acts on behalf of the parent) as the standard for exercising juris | 1 | 1 |
Cheryl Reynolds v. Beneficial National Bank, Appeals of Belinda Petersongreen1 sentence2005See Reynolds v. Beneficial National Bank, 288 F. 3d 277 (7th Cir. 2002). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Luna v. Sherwood
green
1 sentence2025Luna, 208 S.W.3d at 406 ; compare In re Bridgestone/Firestone, 138 S.W.3d 202, 207 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (tying relevant considerations in forum non conveniens context to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947)), with Crouch Ry. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Cohen v. Young
green
2 sentences2017Id. at 724 . 2017Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. General Motors Corp.
green
2 sentences2017UAW, 497 F.3d at 635 . 2017Thus, the trial court “may limit the fairness hearing to whatever is necessary to aid it in reaching an informed, just and reasoned decision” and need not endow objecting class members with “the entire panoply of protections afforded by a full-blown trial on the merits.” UAW, 497 F.3d at 635 (quoting Tenn. Ass’n of Health Maint. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Weinberger v. UOP, Inc.
green
2 sentences2014The “fair dealing”, element of the entire fairness analysis “also embraces the duty of candor owed by corporate fiduciaries to disclose all material information relevant to corporate decisions from which they may derive a personal benefit.” Id. (quoting Mills Acquisition Co. v. Macmillan, Inc., 559 A,2d 1261, 1280 (Del.1989)). 2014Fair Dealing As stated above, fair dealing includes factors such as “when the transaction was timed, how it was initiated, structured, negotiated, disclosed to the directors, and how the approvals of. the directors and the stockholders were obtained.” Weinberger, 457 A.2d at 711 , Considering these factors, for the reasons sét forth below, we find that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial 'court’s findings that the sale to Vanguard was fair under the circumstances. (a) Initiation and Timing of the Transaction Rock Ivy contends it is apparent that the conflict of interest transa | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Martin v. Sizemore
green
1 sentence2011We find that DeCuyper’s hand selection of comps to include in the staff report to his peers and his failure to disclose that action undermine the fairness of the hearing.7 These acts “would cause a reasonable person to question the [Commission’s] impartiality.” Id. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Kahn v. Lynch Communication Systems, Inc.
green
1 sentence2006Kahn v. Lynch Communication Systems Inc., 638 A.2d 1110 (Del.1994). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Price Brothers Company, Cross-Appellant v. Philadelphia Gear Corporation, Cross-Appellee
green
1 sentence2004Id. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.