litigation privilege in Tennessee

11 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 2001–2026 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.

Followed or applied (17)

Case	Followed	Cited
Simpson Strong-Tie Co. v. Stewart, Estes & Donnellgreen tenn · 2007 · cited in 4 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2010–2026 2 sentences 2026The litigation privilege is “an important tool in the pursuit of justice.” Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. v. Stewart, Estes & Donnell, 232 S.W.3d 18, 23 (Tenn. 2007). 2015See Simpson Strong-Tie Co. v. Stewart, Estes & Donnell, 232 S.W.3d 18, 22-23 (Tenn.2007) (observing that the litigation privilege was adopted because of its importance to “the public good” and “the integrity of our judicial system”).	4	4
Jones v. Tricegreen tenn · 1962 · cited in 3 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2010–2016 2 sentences 2016Underlying the litigation privilege is the policy that access to the judicial process and the freedom to institute an action without fear of being sued based on statements made in the course of the proceeding is ―so vital and necessary to the integrity of our judicial system that it must be made paramount to the right of an individual to a legal remedy where he [or she] has been wronged thereby.‖ Issa v. Benson, 420 S.W.3d 23, 28 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Jones v. Trice, 360 S.W.2d 48, 51 (Tenn. 1962)). 2013We previously have discussed the litigation privilege: This state further recognizes that “statements made in the course of judicial proceedings which are relevant and pertinent to the issues are absolutely privileged and therefore cannot be used as a basis for a libel action for damages.” Jones v. Trice [ 210 Tenn. 535 ], 360 S.W.2d 48, 50 (Tenn.1962); see also Myers v. Pickering Firm, Inc., 959 S.W.2d 152, 159 (Tenn.Ct.App.1997).	3	3
David v. Yarborough v. United Statesgreen ca4 · 1956 · cited in 3 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2001–2005 2 sentences 2005See generally Yarborough v. United States, 230 F.2d 56, 63 (4th Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 969 , 76 S. Ct. 1034 , 100 L. 2002See generally Yarborough v. United States, 230 F.2d 56, 63 (4th Cir.1956), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 969 , 76 S.Ct. 1034 , 100 L.Ed. 1487 (1956); Brandborg v. Lucas, 891 F.Supp. 352 (E.D.Tex.1995); State v. Via, 146 Ariz. 108 , 704 P.2d 238, 248 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1048 , 106 S.Ct. 1268 , 89 L.Ed.2d 577 (1986); Coleman v. United States, 379 A.2d 951, 954 (D.C.Ct.App.1977); Rose v. Sheedy, 345 Mo. 610 , 134 S.W.2d 18, 19 (1939); Corey Schriod Smith v. State, 797 So.2d 503 (Ala.Crim.App.2000).	3	3
Pennsylvania ex rel. Paylor v. Johnstongreen scotus · 1956 · cited in 3 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2001–2005 2 sentences 2005See generally Yarborough v. United States, 230 F.2d 56, 63 (4th Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 969 , 76 S. Ct. 1034 , 100 L. 2002See generally Yarborough v. United States, 230 F.2d 56, 63 (4th Cir.1956), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 969 , 76 S.Ct. 1034 , 100 L.Ed. 1487 (1956); Brandborg v. Lucas, 891 F.Supp. 352 (E.D.Tex.1995); State v. Via, 146 Ariz. 108 , 704 P.2d 238, 248 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1048 , 106 S.Ct. 1268 , 89 L.Ed.2d 577 (1986); Coleman v. United States, 379 A.2d 951, 954 (D.C.Ct.App.1977); Rose v. Sheedy, 345 Mo. 610 , 134 S.W.2d 18, 19 (1939); Corey Schriod Smith v. State, 797 So.2d 503 (Ala.Crim.App.2000).	3	3
Lambdin Funeral Service, Inc. v. Griffithgreen tenn · 1978 · cited in 2 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2010–2016 2 sentences 2016The litigation privilege embodies a general recognition that ―statements made in the course of a judicial proceeding that are relevant and pertinent to the issues involved are absolutely privileged and cannot be the predicate for liability in an action for libel, slander, or invasion of privacy.‖ Jones v. State, 426 S.W.3d 50, 57 (Tenn. 2013) (quoting Lambdin Funeral Serv. v. Griffith, 559 S.W.2d 791, 792 (Tenn. 1978)). 2016The litigation privilege embodies a general recognition that ―statements made in the course of a judicial proceeding that are relevant and pertinent to the issues involved are absolutely privileged and cannot be the predicate for liability in an action for libel, slander, or invasion of privacy.‖ Jones v. State, 426 S.W.3d 50, 57 (Tenn. 2013) (quoting Lambdin Funeral Serv. v. Griffith, 559 S.W.2d 791, 792 (Tenn. 1978)).	2	2
Lea v. Whitegreen tenn · 1856 · cited in 2 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2007–2010 2 sentences 2010See Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc. v. Stewart, 232 S.W.3d 18, 22 (Tenn.2007) (citing Lea v. White, 36 Tenn. (4 Sneed) 111 (1856)). 2010When first recognized in Tennessee, the litigation privilege only pertained to matters that occurred in “the course of a judicial proceeding.” Lea, 36 Tenn. at 113-14 (finding the privilege was based upon the recognition that “ ‘proceedings connected with the judicature of the country are so important to the public good.’ ”) (quoting Cooke on Defamation, 49).	2	2
Unarco Material Handling, Inc. v. Liberatogreen tennctapp · 2010 · cited in 2 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2024–2026 2 sentences 2026See id. at 240 (noting that “an attorney’s immunity from civil liability does not preclude other consequences, such as sanctions from the Board of Professional Responsibility”).4 Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s conclusion that Plaintiff failed to state any claim for which relief can be granted, as the litigation privilege is an absolute bar to any of the purported causes of action. 2024They further asserted that the litigation privilege, as discussed in Unarco Material Handling, Inc. v. William Liberato et al., 317 S.W.3d 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) and The Law Offices of T.	1	2
Finkelstein v. Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc.green dc · 2001 · cited in 2 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2007–2010 2 sentences 2010Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran v. Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc., 774 A.2d 332, 338 (D.C.Ct.App.2001). 2007The plaintiff argued, as the plaintiff argues here, that if the rule were otherwise, a law firm “‘trolling for clients’ and motivated ... by self-interest will have ‘carte blanche authority to lie about any potential target regardless of whether it had actual or proposed clients who were even pondering, much less seriously considering litigation.’ ” Id. at 345 .	1	2
Paulson v. Sternlofgreen oklacivapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016Ct. App. 2008) (holding the defendant could not be liable for IIED where the claim was based on a statement protected by the litigation privilege); Paulson v. Sternlof, 15 P.3d 981, 984 (Okla.	1	1
Zoyle Jones v. State of Tennesseegreen tenn · 2013 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 2 sentences 2016The litigation privilege embodies a general recognition that ―statements made in the course of a judicial proceeding that are relevant and pertinent to the issues involved are absolutely privileged and cannot be the predicate for liability in an action for libel, slander, or invasion of privacy.‖ Jones v. State, 426 S.W.3d 50, 57 (Tenn. 2013) (quoting Lambdin Funeral Serv. v. Griffith, 559 S.W.2d 791, 792 (Tenn. 1978)). 2016The litigation privilege embodies a general recognition that ―statements made in the course of a judicial proceeding that are relevant and pertinent to the issues involved are absolutely privileged and cannot be the predicate for liability in an action for libel, slander, or invasion of privacy.‖ Jones v. State, 426 S.W.3d 50, 57 (Tenn. 2013) (quoting Lambdin Funeral Serv. v. Griffith, 559 S.W.2d 791, 792 (Tenn. 1978)).	1	1
Bassam Issa v. Jack Benson, Sr.green tennctapp · 2013 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016Underlying the litigation privilege is the policy that access to the judicial process and the freedom to institute an action without fear of being sued based on statements made in the course of the proceeding is ―so vital and necessary to the integrity of our judicial system that it must be made paramount to the right of an individual to a legal remedy where he [or she] has been wronged thereby.‖ Issa v. Benson, 420 S.W.3d 23, 28 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Jones v. Trice, 360 S.W.2d 48, 51 (Tenn. 1962)).	1	1
Myers v. Pickering Firm, Inc.green tennctapp · 1997 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013We previously have discussed the litigation privilege: This state further recognizes that “statements made in the course of judicial proceedings which are relevant and pertinent to the issues are absolutely privileged and therefore cannot be used as a basis for a libel action for damages.” Jones v. Trice [ 210 Tenn. 535 ], 360 S.W.2d 48, 50 (Tenn.1962); see also Myers v. Pickering Firm, Inc., 959 S.W.2d 152, 159 (Tenn.Ct.App.1997). 2013We previously have discussed the litigation privilege: This state further recognizes that “statements made in the course of judicial proceedings which are relevant and pertinent to the issues are absolutely privileged and therefore cannot be used as a basis for a libel action for damages.” Jones v. Trice [ 210 Tenn. 535 ], 360 S.W.2d 48, 50 (Tenn.1962); see also Myers v. Pickering Firm, Inc., 959 S.W.2d 152, 159 (Tenn.Ct.App.1997).	1	1
Matsuura v. EI Du Pont De Nemours and Co.green haw · 2003 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 2 sentences 2010Id. at 748-49 (quoting Matsuura v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 102 Hawai'i 149 , 73 P.3d 687, 693 (2003)). 2010Id. at 748-49 (quoting Matsuura v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 102 Hawai'i 149 , 73 P.3d 687, 693 (2003)).	1	1
Andrews v. Elliotgreen ncctapp · 1993 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 2 sentences 2007The plaintiff argues that the privilege should not apply to circumstances such as those presented here because rather than limiting the defamatory communications to persons having a potential claim against the plaintiff, the defendant “indiscriminately circulated them to the entire world.” According to the plaintiff, the defendant had not consulted with a client or potential client about any claim against the plaintiff but broadly scattered its defamatory statements to everyone with access to the Tennessean newspaper and the Internet. 3 Re 26 lying upon cases finding that a defamatory communi 2007The plaintiff argues that the privilege should not apply to circumstances such as those presented here because rather than limiting the defamatory communications to persons having a potential claim against the plaintiff, the defendant “indiscriminately circulated them to the entire world.” According to the plaintiff, the defendant had not consulted with a client or potential client about any claim against the plaintiff but broadly scattered its defamatory statements to everyone with access to the Tennessean newspaper and the Internet. 3 Re 26 lying upon cases finding that a defamatory communi	1	1
Rose v. Sheedygreen mo · 1939 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002See generally Yarborough v. United States, 230 F.2d 56, 63 (4th Cir.1956), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 969 , 76 S.Ct. 1034 , 100 L.Ed. 1487 (1956); Brandborg v. Lucas, 891 F.Supp. 352 (E.D.Tex.1995); State v. Via, 146 Ariz. 108 , 704 P.2d 238, 248 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1048 , 106 S.Ct. 1268 , 89 L.Ed.2d 577 (1986); Coleman v. United States, 379 A.2d 951, 954 (D.C.Ct.App.1977); Rose v. Sheedy, 345 Mo. 610 , 134 S.W.2d 18, 19 (1939); Corey Schriod Smith v. State, 797 So.2d 503 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). 2002See generally Yarborough v. United States, 230 F.2d 56, 63 (4th Cir.1956), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 969 , 76 S.Ct. 1034 , 100 L.Ed. 1487 (1956); Brandborg v. Lucas, 891 F.Supp. 352 (E.D.Tex.1995); State v. Via, 146 Ariz. 108 , 704 P.2d 238, 248 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1048 , 106 S.Ct. 1268 , 89 L.Ed.2d 577 (1986); Coleman v. United States, 379 A.2d 951, 954 (D.C.Ct.App.1977); Rose v. Sheedy, 345 Mo. 610 , 134 S.W.2d 18, 19 (1939); Corey Schriod Smith v. State, 797 So.2d 503 (Ala.Crim.App.2000).	1	1
State v. Viagreen ariz · 1985 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002See generally Yarborough v. United States, 230 F.2d 56, 63 (4th Cir.1956), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 969 , 76 S.Ct. 1034 , 100 L.Ed. 1487 (1956); Brandborg v. Lucas, 891 F.Supp. 352 (E.D.Tex.1995); State v. Via, 146 Ariz. 108 , 704 P.2d 238, 248 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1048 , 106 S.Ct. 1268 , 89 L.Ed.2d 577 (1986); Coleman v. United States, 379 A.2d 951, 954 (D.C.Ct.App.1977); Rose v. Sheedy, 345 Mo. 610 , 134 S.W.2d 18, 19 (1939); Corey Schriod Smith v. State, 797 So.2d 503 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). 2002See generally Yarborough v. United States, 230 F.2d 56, 63 (4th Cir.1956), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 969 , 76 S.Ct. 1034 , 100 L.Ed. 1487 (1956); Brandborg v. Lucas, 891 F.Supp. 352 (E.D.Tex.1995); State v. Via, 146 Ariz. 108 , 704 P.2d 238, 248 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1048 , 106 S.Ct. 1268 , 89 L.Ed.2d 577 (1986); Coleman v. United States, 379 A.2d 951, 954 (D.C.Ct.App.1977); Rose v. Sheedy, 345 Mo. 610 , 134 S.W.2d 18, 19 (1939); Corey Schriod Smith v. State, 797 So.2d 503 (Ala.Crim.App.2000).	1	1
Coleman v. United Statesgreen dc · 1977 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002See generally Yarborough v. United States, 230 F.2d 56, 63 (4th Cir.1956), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 969 , 76 S.Ct. 1034 , 100 L.Ed. 1487 (1956); Brandborg v. Lucas, 891 F.Supp. 352 (E.D.Tex.1995); State v. Via, 146 Ariz. 108 , 704 P.2d 238, 248 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1048 , 106 S.Ct. 1268 , 89 L.Ed.2d 577 (1986); Coleman v. United States, 379 A.2d 951, 954 (D.C.Ct.App.1977); Rose v. Sheedy, 345 Mo. 610 , 134 S.W.2d 18, 19 (1939); Corey Schriod Smith v. State, 797 So.2d 503 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). 2002See generally Yarborough v. United States, 230 F.2d 56, 63 (4th Cir.1956), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 969 , 76 S.Ct. 1034 , 100 L.Ed. 1487 (1956); Brandborg v. Lucas, 891 F.Supp. 352 (E.D.Tex.1995); State v. Via, 146 Ariz. 108 , 704 P.2d 238, 248 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1048 , 106 *476 S.Ct. 1268, 89 L.Ed.2d 577 (1986); Coleman v. United States, 379 A.2d 951, 954 (D.C.Ct.App.1977); Rose v. Sheedy, 345 Mo. 610 , 134 S.W.2d 18, 19 (1939); Corey Schriod Smith v. State, 797 So.2d 503 (Ala.Crim.App.2000).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (11)

Case	Cited	Years
Hayslip v. Wellford neutral tenn · 1953 2 sentences 2016As the Tennessee Supreme Court has long recognized, ―In the imperfection of human nature it is better even that an individual should suffer a wrong than that the general courts of justice should be impeded and fettered by constant and perpetual restraints and apprehensions on the part of those who administer it.‖ Hayslip v. Wellford, 263 S.W.2d 136 (Tenn. 1953) (quoting Webb v. Fisher, 72 S.W. 110 , 112 (Tenn. 1903)). 2013This is true even if the statements are “known to be false or even malicious.” Jones, 360 S.W.2d at 50 (citing Hayslip v. Wellford [ 195 Tenn. 621 ], 263 S.W.2d 136 (Tenn.1953)).	2	2013–2016
Brandborg v. Lucas green txed · 1995 2 sentences 2002See generally Yarborough v. United States, 230 F.2d 56, 63 (4th Cir.1956), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 969 , 76 S.Ct. 1034 , 100 L.Ed. 1487 (1956); Brandborg v. Lucas, 891 F.Supp. 352 (E.D.Tex.1995); State v. Via, 146 Ariz. 108 , 704 P.2d 238, 248 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1048 , 106 S.Ct. 1268 , 89 L.Ed.2d 577 (1986); Coleman v. United States, 379 A.2d 951, 954 (D.C.Ct.App.1977); Rose v. Sheedy, 345 Mo. 610 , 134 S.W.2d 18, 19 (1939); Corey Schriod Smith v. State, 797 So.2d 503 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). 2002See generally Yarborough v. United States, 230 F.2d 56, 63 (4th Cir.1956), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 969 , 76 S.Ct. 1034 , 100 L.Ed. 1487 (1956); Brandborg v. Lucas, 891 F.Supp. 352 (E.D.Tex.1995); State v. Via, 146 Ariz. 108 , 704 P.2d 238, 248 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1048 , 106 *476 S.Ct. 1268, 89 L.Ed.2d 577 (1986); Coleman v. United States, 379 A.2d 951, 954 (D.C.Ct.App.1977); Rose v. Sheedy, 345 Mo. 610 , 134 S.W.2d 18, 19 (1939); Corey Schriod Smith v. State, 797 So.2d 503 (Ala.Crim.App.2000).	2	2001–2002
Clark v. Druckman green wva · 2005 1 sentence 2010Clark also explained that the litigation privilege did not apply in all circumstances, that “exceptions to an absolute litigation privilege arising from conduct occurring during the litigation process are reasonable accommodations which preserve an attorney's duty of zealous advocacy while providing a deterrent to intentional conduct which is unrelated to legitimate litigation tactics and which harms an opposing party.” Clark, 624 S.E.2d at 870 .	1	2010–2010
MacKe Laundry Service Ltd. Partnership v. Jetz Service Co. green moctapp · 1996 2 sentences 2010As for the issue of civil conspiracy, the appellate court examined the effect of the litigation immunity before addressing the issue of civil conspiracy because "the nature of the attorney-client relationship ... impacts [the attorney’s] liability to a nonclient for acts occurring during his representation of [his client].” Id. at 176 . 2010Following its analysis, the Missouri appellate court found that “an attorney may be liable even though the attorney is acting within the scope of the attorney-client relationship, ...” Id. 10 .	1	2010–2010
Kahala Royal Corp. v. Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel green haw · 2007 2 sentences 2010The Supreme Court of Hawaii examined the litigation privilege defense in the context of claims and facts that are substantially similar to ours in Kahala Royal Corp. v. Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel, LLP, 118 Hawai'i 251 , 151 P.3d 732 (2007). 2010The plaintiffs replied insisting the litigation privilege was not available to Jones Day because it did not apply to intentional torts, which they asserted were “outside the scope of an attorney’s legitimate representation and involve conduct, not mere advice.” Id. at 747 .	1	2010–2010
Williams v. Kenney green njsuperctappdiv · 2005 2 sentences 2007Although the plaintiff cites several cases in which the privilege was found to be inapplicable, such as Williams v. Kenney, 379 N.J.Super. 118 , 877 A.2d 277 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.2005), Chafoulias v. Peterson, No. C2-01-1617, 2003 WL 23025097 (Minn.Ct.App. 2007Although the plaintiff cites several cases in which the privilege was found to be inapplicable, such as Williams v. Kenney, 379 N.J.Super. 118 , 877 A.2d 277 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.2005), Chafoulias v. Peterson, No. C2-01-1617, 2003 WL 23025097 (Minn.Ct.App.	1	2007–2007
Samson Investment Co. v. Chevaillier green okla · 1999 1 sentence 2007Co. v. Chevaillier, 988 P.2d 327 (Okla.1999) (draft complaint sent to a prospective client was protected by the litigation privilege where the document was meant to solicit clients).	1	2007–2007
Smith v. State green alacrimapp · 2000 2 sentences 2002See generally Yarborough v. United States, 230 F.2d 56, 63 (4th Cir.1956), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 969 , 76 S.Ct. 1034 , 100 L.Ed. 1487 (1956); Brandborg v. Lucas, 891 F.Supp. 352 (E.D.Tex.1995); State v. Via, 146 Ariz. 108 , 704 P.2d 238, 248 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1048 , 106 S.Ct. 1268 , 89 L.Ed.2d 577 (1986); Coleman v. United States, 379 A.2d 951, 954 (D.C.Ct.App.1977); Rose v. Sheedy, 345 Mo. 610 , 134 S.W.2d 18, 19 (1939); Corey Schriod Smith v. State, 797 So.2d 503 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). 2002See generally Yarborough v. United States, 230 F.2d 56, 63 (4th Cir.1956), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 969 , 76 S.Ct. 1034 , 100 L.Ed. 1487 (1956); Brandborg v. Lucas, 891 F.Supp. 352 (E.D.Tex.1995); State v. Via, 146 Ariz. 108 , 704 P.2d 238, 248 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1048 , 106 *476 S.Ct. 1268, 89 L.Ed.2d 577 (1986); Coleman v. United States, 379 A.2d 951, 954 (D.C.Ct.App.1977); Rose v. Sheedy, 345 Mo. 610 , 134 S.W.2d 18, 19 (1939); Corey Schriod Smith v. State, 797 So.2d 503 (Ala.Crim.App.2000).	1	2002–2002
Bowlding v. United States green scotus · 1986 1 sentence 2002See generally Yarborough v. United States, 230 F.2d 56, 63 (4th Cir.1956), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 969 , 76 S.Ct. 1034 , 100 L.Ed. 1487 (1956); Brandborg v. Lucas, 891 F.Supp. 352 (E.D.Tex.1995); State v. Via, 146 Ariz. 108 , 704 P.2d 238, 248 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1048 , 106 S.Ct. 1268 , 89 L.Ed.2d 577 (1986); Coleman v. United States, 379 A.2d 951, 954 (D.C.Ct.App.1977); Rose v. Sheedy, 345 Mo. 610 , 134 S.W.2d 18, 19 (1939); Corey Schriod Smith v. State, 797 So.2d 503 (Ala.Crim.App.2000).	1	2002–2002
Crump v. United States green scotus · 1986 2 sentences 2002See generally Yarborough v. United States, 230 F.2d 56, 63 (4th Cir.1956), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 969 , 76 S.Ct. 1034 , 100 L.Ed. 1487 (1956); Brandborg v. Lucas, 891 F.Supp. 352 (E.D.Tex.1995); State v. Via, 146 Ariz. 108 , 704 P.2d 238, 248 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1048 , 106 S.Ct. 1268 , 89 L.Ed.2d 577 (1986); Coleman v. United States, 379 A.2d 951, 954 (D.C.Ct.App.1977); Rose v. Sheedy, 345 Mo. 610 , 134 S.W.2d 18, 19 (1939); Corey Schriod Smith v. State, 797 So.2d 503 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). 2002See generally Yarborough v. United States, 230 F.2d 56, 63 (4th Cir.1956), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 969 , 76 S.Ct. 1034 , 100 L.Ed. 1487 (1956); Brandborg v. Lucas, 891 F.Supp. 352 (E.D.Tex.1995); State v. Via, 146 Ariz. 108 , 704 P.2d 238, 248 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1048 , 106 *476 S.Ct. 1268, 89 L.Ed.2d 577 (1986); Coleman v. United States, 379 A.2d 951, 954 (D.C.Ct.App.1977); Rose v. Sheedy, 345 Mo. 610 , 134 S.W.2d 18, 19 (1939); Corey Schriod Smith v. State, 797 So.2d 503 (Ala.Crim.App.2000).	1	2002–2002
Sonderegger v. E. F. Hutton & Co. green scotus · 1986 2 sentences 2002See generally Yarborough v. United States, 230 F.2d 56, 63 (4th Cir.1956), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 969 , 76 S.Ct. 1034 , 100 L.Ed. 1487 (1956); Brandborg v. Lucas, 891 F.Supp. 352 (E.D.Tex.1995); State v. Via, 146 Ariz. 108 , 704 P.2d 238, 248 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1048 , 106 S.Ct. 1268 , 89 L.Ed.2d 577 (1986); Coleman v. United States, 379 A.2d 951, 954 (D.C.Ct.App.1977); Rose v. Sheedy, 345 Mo. 610 , 134 S.W.2d 18, 19 (1939); Corey Schriod Smith v. State, 797 So.2d 503 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). 2002See generally Yarborough v. United States, 230 F.2d 56, 63 (4th Cir.1956), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 969 , 76 S.Ct. 1034 , 100 L.Ed. 1487 (1956); Brandborg v. Lucas, 891 F.Supp. 352 (E.D.Tex.1995); State v. Via, 146 Ariz. 108 , 704 P.2d 238, 248 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1048 , 106 *476 S.Ct. 1268, 89 L.Ed.2d 577 (1986); Coleman v. United States, 379 A.2d 951, 954 (D.C.Ct.App.1977); Rose v. Sheedy, 345 Mo. 610 , 134 S.W.2d 18, 19 (1939); Corey Schriod Smith v. State, 797 So.2d 503 (Ala.Crim.App.2000).	1	2002–2002

Where else courts name it

CA 761 (1893–2026) CO 168 (1990–2026) TX 71 (1986–2025) NJ 58 (1984–2026) VT 54 (1992–2026) PA 47 (1982–2022) NY 47 (1875–2026) FL 43 (1981–2026) CT 39 (1986–2026) IL 32 (1917–2025) WV 24 (1915–2025) MA 22 (1956–2026) OH 17 (1924–2026) AZ 17 (2000–2025) WA 15 (1940–2026) HI 13 (2003–2026) MI 12 (1957–2023) IN 11 (1923–2019) MD 11 (1965–2024) TN 11 (2001–2026) DC 10 (1985–2023) NC 10 (1987–2021) KY 10 (1992–2026) NV 9 (1991–2021) AK 9 (1980–2025) ID 9 (2010–2024) OR 8 (2016–2025) MO 8 (1988–2022) MS 8 (1917–2019) DE 8 (2000–2026) VA 6 (1983–2003) GA 6 (1972–2011) UT 6 (1935–2013) LA 6 (1966–2022) WI 6 (1994–2025) KS 5 (1930–2024) ME 4 (2014–2024) RI 4 (1982–2025) AL 4 (1931–1994) ND 4 (1981–1990) IA 3 (2015–2023) OK 3 (1999–2022) MN 2 (1985–2019) AR 2 (1952–1957) WY 2 (1928–1930) NM 2 (2016–2016) NH 2 (1855–1985)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check