recognition rule in Tennessee

2000A ccording to the majority, the 1981 amendment to the paternal liability statutes abolished the defense that had been intact since the enactment of the original 1957 statute.2 M oreover, the majority opines that w hat w as then a def ense before the 1981 amendment is now the basis for liability; that is, a cause of action 1 213 Tenn. 195 , 373 S.W.2d 441 (1963). 2 Implicit in the majority’s assertion that the 1981 amendm ent abolished the defense prov ided by the original parental liability statute is a recognition that the defense provided by the 1957 statute surviv ed amendments in both 1969

2000A ccording to the majority, the 1981 amendment to the paternal liability statutes abolished the defense that had been intact since the enactment of the original 1957 statute.2 M oreover, the majority opines that w hat w as then a def ense before the 1981 amendment is now the basis for liability; that is, a cause of action 1 213 Tenn. 195 , 373 S.W.2d 441 (1963). 2 Implicit in the majority’s assertion that the 1981 amendm ent abolished the defense prov ided by the original parental liability statute is a recognition that the defense provided by the 1957 statute surviv ed amendments in both 1969

2010We note that the petitioner’s contentions relate to errors recognized in Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 , 99 S. Ct. 2450 (1979), and in State v. Bolin, 678 S.W.2d 40 (Tenn. 1984).

2010We note that the petitioner’s contentions relate to errors recognized in Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 , 99 S. Ct. 2450 (1979), and in State v. Bolin, 678 S.W.2d 40 (Tenn. 1984).

2010We note that the petitioner’s contentions relate to errors recognized in Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 , 99 S. Ct. 2450 (1979), and in State v. Bolin, 678 S.W.2d 40 (Tenn. 1984).

2001In Marr v. Gilliam, 41 Tenn. 488 , 501 (Tenn. 1860), the supreme court stated: It is, however, well settled that the exclusive and uninterrupted possession by one tenant in common of land for a great number of years - say for twenty or more - claiming the same as his own, without any account with his co-tenants, or claim on their part, - they being under no disability to assert their rights, - becomes evidence of a title to such sole possession, and the jury are authorized to presume a release, an ouster, or other thing necessary to protect the possessor, and the action of ejectment by his co-

1999Stem. v. Nashville Interurban Ry., 142 Tenn. 494 , 221 S.W. 192 , 195 (Tenn.1920).

1982The only recognition of the defense in our law is found in Galbreath v. State, 187 Tenn. 669 , 216 S.W.2d 689 (1948) in which it was held that the defense was not available to a taxicab driver charged with selling intoxicating liquors, the proof showing that he was finan- daily interested in the sale in that he charged and received a cab fare in connection with the sale.

1982The only recognition of the defense in our law is found in Galbreath v. State, 187 Tenn. 669 , 216 S.W.2d 689 (1948) in which it was held that the defense was not available to a taxicab driver charged with selling intoxicating liquors, the proof showing that he was finan- daily interested in the sale in that he charged and received a cab fare in connection with the sale.

1969Helvering v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 95 F.2d 806 , wherein that court said at page 812: “# * * It [taxing authority] could not ignore the pregnant fact, having found it to exist, that a large block of stock cannot be marketed and turned into money as readily as a few shares.

1956The United States Supreme Court has very recently, in Hazel-Atlas Class Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., supra [ 322 U.S. 238 , 64 S.Ct. 1000 ], said: “But where the occasion has demanded, where enforcement of the judgment is ‘manifestly unconscionable’, Pickford v. Talbott, 225 U.S. 651, 657 , 32 S.Ct. 687, 689 , 56 L.Ed. 1240 , they have wielded the power without hesitation. [This statement in the opinion which is now quoted follows a recognition of the rule of the Throckmorton case and other related cases.] “Every element of the fraud here disclosed demands the exercise of the historic power of

1956The United States Supreme Court has very recently, in Hazel-Atlas Class Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., supra [ 322 U.S. 238 , 64 S.Ct. 1000 ], said: “But where the occasion has demanded, where enforcement of the judgment is ‘manifestly unconscionable’, Pickford v. Talbott, 225 U.S. 651, 657 , 32 S.Ct. 687, 689 , 56 L.Ed. 1240 , they have wielded the power without hesitation. [This statement in the opinion which is now quoted follows a recognition of the rule of the Throckmorton case and other related cases.] “Every element of the fraud here disclosed demands the exercise of the historic power of

1956The United States Supreme Court has very recently, in Hazel-Atlas Class Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., supra [ 322 U.S. 238 , 64 S.Ct. 1000 ], said: “But where the occasion has demanded, where enforcement of the judgment is ‘manifestly unconscionable’, Pickford v. Talbott, 225 U.S. 651, 657 , 32 S.Ct. 687, 689 , 56 L.Ed. 1240 , they have wielded the power without hesitation. [This statement in the opinion which is now quoted follows a recognition of the rule of the Throckmorton case and other related cases.] “Every element of the fraud here disclosed demands the exercise of the historic power of

1956The United States Supreme Court has very recently, in Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., supra [ 322 U.S. 238 , 64 S.Ct. 1000 ], said: "But where the occasion has demanded, where enforcement of the judgment is `manifestly unconscionable', Pickford v. Talbott, 225 U.S. 651, 657 , 32 S.Ct. 687, 689 , 56 L.Ed. 1240 , they have wielded the power without hesitation. [This statement in the opinion which is now quoted follows a recognition of the rule of the Throckmorton case and other related cases.] * * * "Every element of the fraud here disclosed demands the exercise of the historic pow

1926And so Moe v. Harris, 172 N. W., 494 , (Minn., 1919) and Williams Co. v. Leong Sue Ah Quin, 186 Pac., 401 (Cal., 1919) likewise appear to deny liability.

1926And so Moe v. Harris, 172 N. W., 494 , (Minn., 1919) and Williams Co. v. Leong Sue Ah Quin, 186 Pac., 401 (Cal., 1919) likewise appear to deny liability.