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.
12 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2016 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hannan v. Alltel Publishing Co.red2 sentences2015See Hannan, 270 S.W.3d at 6-7 . -2- of Tennessee Rule [of Civil Procedure] 56” and “frustrate[s] the purposes for which summary judgment was intended.” The majority opinion suggests that by adding the words “at trial” to the second prong of the Byrd/Hannan standard, the Court improperly moved the focus away from the evidence adduced at the summary judgment stage and onto “hypothetical evidence that theoretically could be adduced, despite the passage of discovery deadlines, at a future trial.” (Emphasis added.) Ultimately, the majority has concluded that the Byrd/Hannan standard “has shifted th 2013Hannan, 270 S.W.3d at 5, 8-9 . | 2 | 3 |
Dupuis v. Handgreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., Dupuis, 814 S.W.2d at 345 (deciding to abolish a tort after it had already been prospectively abolished by the Legislature); Hanover, 809 S.W.2d at 896 (same). 2015See, e.g., Dupuis, 814 S.W.2d at 345 (deciding to abolish a tort after it had already been prospectively abolished by the Legislature); Hanover, 809 S.W.2d at 896 (same). | 2 | 2 |
Hanover v. Ruchgreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., Dupuis, 814 S.W.2d at 345 (deciding to abolish a tort after it had already been prospectively abolished by the Legislature); Hanover, 809 S.W.2d at 896 (same). 2015See, e.g., Dupuis, 814 S.W.2d at 345 (deciding to abolish a tort after it had already been prospectively abolished by the Legislature); Hanover, 809 S.W.2d at 896 (same). | 2 | 2 |
Byrd v. Hallgreen2 sentences2013The Tennessee Supreme Court recently expounded on the Hannan standard: In Hannan, this Court reaffirmed the basic principles guiding Tennessee courts in determining whether a motion for summary judgment should be granted, stating: The moving party has the ultimate burden of persuading the court that “there are no disputed, material facts creating a genuine issue for trial . . . and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Byrd, 847 S.W.2d at 215 . 2013The Tennessee Supreme Court recently expounded on the Hannan standard: In Hannan, this Court reaffirmed the basic principles guiding Tennessee courts in determining whether a motion for summary judgment should be granted, stating: The moving party has the ultimate burden of persuading the court that “there are no disputed, material facts creating a genuine issue for trial . . . and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Byrd, 847 S.W.2d at 215 . | 1 | 4 |
State v. Watkinsgreen2 sentences2015Thus, ―if an error has been committed, and becomes plain and palpable, th[is] [C]ourt will not decline to correct it, even though it may have been reasserted and acquiesced in for a long number of years.‖ Arnold v. City of Knoxville, 90 S.W. 469 , 470 (Tenn. 1905); see, e.g., State v. Watkins, 362 S.W.3d 530, 556 (Tenn. 2012) (overruling a sixteen-year-old decision because the state constitutional test it adopted was unworkable and because there was no textual or 8 Indeed, although the dissent views Hannan as the better standard, by forcing parties to proceed to trial even when no genuine issu 2015Thus, ―if an error has been committed, and becomes plain and palpable, th[is] [C]ourt will not decline to correct it, even though it may have been reasserted and acquiesced in for a long number of years.‖ Arnold v. City of Knoxville, 90 S.W. 469 , 470 (Tenn. 1905); see, e.g., State v. Watkins, 362 S.W.3d 530, 556 (Tenn. 2012) (overruling a sixteen-year-old decision because the state constitutional test it adopted was unworkable and because there was no textual or 8 Indeed, although the dissent views Hannan as the better standard, by forcing parties to proceed to trial even when no genuine issu | 1 | 1 |
Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc.green1 sentence2015(Emphasis added.)5 We have consistently rejected federal rules that are contrary to “the strong preference embodied in the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure that cases . . . be decided on their merits,” and have afforded appropriate recognition to “the Tennessee constitutional mandate that „the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate.‟” Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 432 (Tenn. 2011) (quoting Tenn. Const. art. | 1 | 1 |
Harms v. Laboratory Corp. of Americagreen2 sentences2014White v. Target Corp., 2012 WL 6599814 , at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2012); see Harms, 155 F.Supp.2d at 912 (applying the less stringent federal summary judgment standard to conclude that the damages sought were speculative). 2014White v. Target Corp., 2012 WL 6599814 , at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2012); see Harms, 155 F.Supp.2d at 912 (applying the less stringent federal summary judgment standard to conclude that the damages sought were speculative). | 1 | 1 |
Tennie Martin, et.al. v. Southern Railway Company, et.al.green2 sentences2014P., Rule 56.06.” Martin v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 271 S.W.3d 76, 84 (Tenn. 3 The Hannan standard was recently replaced by the enactment of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 20-16-101, which is intended to “return the summary judgment burden-shifting analytical framework to that which existed prior to Hannan.” Coleman v. S. Tenn. Oil Inc., No. M2011-01329-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 2628617 , at *5 n.3 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 5, 2012). 2014P., Rule 56.06.” Martin v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 271 S.W.3d 76, 84 (Tenn. 3 The Hannan standard was recently replaced by the enactment of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 20-16-101, which is intended to “return the summary judgment burden-shifting analytical framework to that which existed prior to Hannan.” Coleman v. S. Tenn. Oil Inc., No. M2011-01329-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 2628617 , at *5 n.3 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 5, 2012). | 1 | 1 |
Gary M. GOSSETT v. TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY, INC.red2 sentences2014“The moving party may make the required showing and therefore shift the burden of production to the nonmoving party by either: (1) affirmatively negating an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim; or (2) showing that the nonmoving party cannot prove an essential element of the claim at trial.”7 Martin, 271 S.W.3d at 83 (citing Hannan v. Alltel 7 In Gossett v. Tractor Supply Co., Inc., 320 S.W.3d 777, 785 (Tenn. 2010), our Supreme Court held that the Hannan standard is applicable to motions for summary judgment on retaliatory discharge claims, not the federal McDonnell Douglas framewo 2014“The moving party may make the required showing and therefore shift the burden of production to the nonmoving party by either: (1) affirmatively negating an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim; or (2) showing that the nonmoving party cannot prove an essential element of the claim at trial.”7 Martin, 271 S.W.3d at 83 (citing Hannan v. Alltel 7 In Gossett v. Tractor Supply Co., Inc., 320 S.W.3d 777, 785 (Tenn. 2010), our Supreme Court held that the Hannan standard is applicable to motions for summary judgment on retaliatory discharge claims, not the federal McDonnell Douglas framewo | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Michelle RYE Et Al. v. WOMEN’S CARE CENTER OF MEMPHIS, MPLLC Et Al.
green
2 sentences2016The Supreme Court granted Weitz‘s petition for the purpose of remanding the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of the Court‘s decision in Rye v. Women’s Care Center of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 2015), which set forth a standard different than the Hannan standard to determine whether a party is entitled to summary judgment. 2016The Supreme Court granted Weitz‘s petition for the purpose of remanding the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of the Court‘s decision in Rye v. Women’s Care Center of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 2015), which set forth a standard different than the Hannan standard to determine whether a party is entitled to summary judgment. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
McCarley v. West Quality Food Service
green
1 sentence2015These principles of summary judgment have a long-standing foundation in Tennessee jurisprudence, as confirmed in 1993 with this Court’s ruling in Byrd , as reaffirmed in 1998 by McCarley v. West Quality Food Service, 960 S.W.2d 585 (Tenn. 1998), and as refined in 2008 by our decision in Hannan, as well as other more recent cases. 2 Today, less than seven years after the Hannan decision and more than twenty years since Byrd , my colleagues have reversed field, observing that our summary judgment standard is “incompatible with the history and text of Tennessee Rule [of Civil Procedure] 56” and “ | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Allyn v. Wright
neutral
2 sentences2014“The moving party may make the required showing and therefore shift the burden of production to the nonmoving party by either: (1) affirmatively negating an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim; or (2) showing that the nonmoving party cannot prove an essential element of the claim at trial.”7 Martin, 271 S.W.3d at 83 (citing Hannan v. Alltel 7 In Gossett v. Tractor Supply Co., Inc., 320 S.W.3d 777, 785 (Tenn. 2010), our Supreme Court held that the Hannan standard is applicable to motions for summary judgment on retaliatory discharge claims, not the federal McDonnell Douglas framewo 2014“The moving party may make the required showing and therefore shift the burden of production to the nonmoving party by either: (1) affirmatively negating an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim; or (2) showing that the nonmoving party cannot prove an essential element of the claim at trial.”7 Martin, 271 S.W.3d at 83 (citing Hannan v. Alltel 7 In Gossett v. Tractor Supply Co., Inc., 320 S.W.3d 777, 785 (Tenn. 2010), our Supreme Court held that the Hannan standard is applicable to motions for summary judgment on retaliatory discharge claims, not the federal McDonnell Douglas framewo | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Porsha Perkins v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
green
2 sentences2013Gov’t Nashville, 380 S.W.3d 73 , 79 n.8 (Tenn. 2012) (recognizing the holding in Gossett “that the burden-shifting framework of -10- McDonnell Douglas does not apply at the summary judgment stage in Tennessee”).7 The Tennessee Supreme Court recently expounded on the Hannan standard: In Hannan, this Court reaffirmed the basic principles guiding Tennessee courts in determining whether a motion for summary judgment should be granted, stating: The moving party has the ultimate burden of persuading the court that “there are no disputed, material facts creating a genuine issue for trial . . . and th 2013Gov’t Nashville, 380 S.W.3d 73 , 79 n.8 (Tenn. 2012) (recognizing the holding in Gossett “that the burden-shifting framework of -10- McDonnell Douglas does not apply at the summary judgment stage in Tennessee”).7 The Tennessee Supreme Court recently expounded on the Hannan standard: In Hannan, this Court reaffirmed the basic principles guiding Tennessee courts in determining whether a motion for summary judgment should be granted, stating: The moving party has the ultimate burden of persuading the court that “there are no disputed, material facts creating a genuine issue for trial . . . and th | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.