13 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lancaster Estate v. Williamson County Bankgreen2 sentences2001See Lancaster Estate, 664 S.W.2d at 296 . 2001See Lancaster Estate, 664 S.W.2d at 296 . | 2 | 2 |
Rafia Nafees Khan v. Regions Bankgreen1 sentence2026See Khan, 572 S.W.3d at 194 (“[T]he trial court entered its October 16, 2015 order before ruling on the Bank’s motion for additional attorney’s fees. . . . | 1 | 1 |
CHILDRENS v. Union Realty Co., Ltd.green1 sentence2021MUC’s brief, which merely joins in the Bank’s brief, therefore suffers from the same infirmity.9 Generally, we “consider an issue waived where it is argued in the brief but not designated as an issue.” Childress v. Union Realty Co., 97 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Michelle RYE Et Al. v. WOMEN’S CARE CENTER OF MEMPHIS, MPLLC Et Al.green1 sentence2020Rye, 477 S.W.3d at 264. | 1 | 1 |
Smith Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. Premier Hotel Development Groupgreen1 sentence2020Grp., 210 S.W.3d 557 , 562–63 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (“Since matters outside the pleadings were considered by the Trial Court when resolving this particular issue, we will treat the Bank’s motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment in accordance with Tenn. R. | 1 | 1 |
Ferguson v. Browngreen1 sentence2014See Discover Bank, 363 S.W.3d at 490 n.20 (Tennessee courts judge motions substantively rather than based on their forms); Ferguson v. Brown, 291 S.W.3d 381, 387 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (courts are not bound by titles and will treat filings according to relief being sought). | 1 | 1 |
Discover Bank v. Morgangreen1 sentence2014See Discover Bank, 363 S.W.3d at 490 n.20 (Tennessee courts judge motions substantively rather than based on their forms); Ferguson v. Brown, 291 S.W.3d 381, 387 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (courts are not bound by titles and will treat filings according to relief being sought). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Estate of Ella Mae Haire v. Shelby J. Webster
green
1 sentence2024Our Supreme Court concluded, however, that Mr. Haire’s “complaint [was] sufficient to survive the Bank’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.” 570 S.W.3d at 696 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Darryl F. Bryant, Sr. v. Darryl F. Bryant, Jr.
green
1 sentence2019Bryant , which involved real property, not joint tenancy with right of survivorship bank accounts, 522 S.W.3d at 399 , has no bearing on the question presented by this appeal. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc.
green
1 sentence2019A motion to dismiss on this ground "challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the strength of the plaintiff's proof or evidence." Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc. , 346 S.W.3d 422 , 426 (Tenn. 2011) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Young v. Barrow
green
1 sentence2018When a properly supported motion for summary judgment is made, “the nonmoving party ‘may -2- not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [its] pleading,’ but must respond, and by affidavits or one of the other means provided in [Rule 56 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure], ‘set forth specific facts’ at the summary judgment stage ‘showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Id. at 265 (quoting Tenn. R. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Roderick Robertson v. U.S. Bank
green
1 sentence2018Id. 3 U.S. Bank did not assert a counterclaim in the 2014 Lawsuit. -2- granting U.S. Bank’s motion for summary judgment and writ of possession. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
O'Mara Enterprises, Inc. v. People's Bank of Weirton
green
2 sentences2007Corp. v. Inkrott, 55 Ohio St.3d 23 , 563 N.E.2d 26 (Ohio 1990), and O’Mara Enters., Inc. v. People's Bank of Weirton, 187 W.Va. 591 , 420 S.E.2d 727 (W.Va.1992) and asserted that they stood for the proposition that a standard pre-printed resolution cannot shield a bank from liability when circumstances placed the bank on inquiry notice of corporate checking irregularities. 2007Corp. v. Inkrott, 55 Ohio St.3d 23 , 563 N.E.2d 26 (Ohio 1990), and O’Mara Enters., Inc. v. People's Bank of Weirton, 187 W.Va. 591 , 420 S.E.2d 727 (W.Va.1992) and asserted that they stood for the proposition that a standard pre-printed resolution cannot shield a bank from liability when circumstances placed the bank on inquiry notice of corporate checking irregularities. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Master Chemical Corp. v. Inkrott
green
2 sentences2007Corp. v. Inkrott, 55 Ohio St.3d 23 , 563 N.E.2d 26 (Ohio 1990), and O’Mara Enters., Inc. v. People's Bank of Weirton, 187 W.Va. 591 , 420 S.E.2d 727 (W.Va.1992) and asserted that they stood for the proposition that a standard pre-printed resolution cannot shield a bank from liability when circumstances placed the bank on inquiry notice of corporate checking irregularities. 2007Corp. v. Inkrott, 55 Ohio St.3d 23 , 563 N.E.2d 26 (Ohio 1990), and O’Mara Enters., Inc. v. People's Bank of Weirton, 187 W.Va. 591 , 420 S.E.2d 727 (W.Va.1992) and asserted that they stood for the proposition that a standard pre-printed resolution cannot shield a bank from liability when circumstances placed the bank on inquiry notice of corporate checking irregularities. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Tobias v. Josiah Morris & Co.
green
1 sentence1970In Tobias v. Josiah Morris & Co., 126 Ala. 535 , 28 So. 517 , 522, it was said: ‘Negligent silence may work an estoppel as effectually as an express representation. * * * So, to, acts or conduct, though nothing is said, if they are calculated to mislead, and do in fact mislead, will work an estoppel, notwithstanding there was no intention to do so.’ ” The State was misled to its prejudice by the failure of the Bank to claim title to the sign until after the State had paid Mr. Cowan for the sign. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.