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.
11 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ratzlaf v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2020See, e.g., Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 , 191–92 (1998) (quoting Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 137 (1994)) (explaining that the bad purpose element of the willfulness inquiry requires proof “that the defendant acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful”); United States v. Phillips, 527 F. Supp. 1361, 1364 (N.D. 2019App. 1993)); see also Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 191-92 (1998) (explaining that the bad purpose element of the willfulness inquiry requires proof “that the defendant acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful”) (quoting Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 137 (1994)). | 2 | 3 |
Bryan v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2020See, e.g., Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 , 191–92 (1998) (quoting Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 137 (1994)) (explaining that the bad purpose element of the willfulness inquiry requires proof “that the defendant acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful”); United States v. Phillips, 527 F. Supp. 1361, 1364 (N.D. 2019App. 1993)); see also Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 191-92 (1998) (explaining that the bad purpose element of the willfulness inquiry requires proof “that the defendant acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful”) (quoting Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 137 (1994)). | 2 | 2 |
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Robert J. McNulty George G. Handgis, Franklin D. Roberts, John M. Shanklin and W.N. Thompson, John M. Shanklingreen2 sentences2007The original source of the willfulness standard was the Federal Second Circuit.2 That Circuit defines willfulness as “conduct that is more than merely negligent or careless.” SEC v. McNulty, 137 F.3d 732, 738 (2d Cir. 1998). 2007The Second Circuit defines willfulness as “conduct that is more than merely negligent or careless.” SEC v. McNulty, 137 F.3d 732, 738 (2d Cir. 1998); accord Am. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Swansongreen2 sentences2014See In re Swanson, 2 S.W.3d 180, 188 (Tenn. 1999). 2001On appeal, Mr. Rogers asserts that the trial court improperly applied the willfulness requirement, in contravention of the Tennessee Supreme Court’s holding in Tennessee Baptist Children’s Home v. Swanson, 2 S.W.3d 180 (Tenn. 1999). | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Phillipsgreen1 sentence2020See, e.g., Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 , 191–92 (1998) (quoting Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 137 (1994)) (explaining that the bad purpose element of the willfulness inquiry requires proof “that the defendant acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful”); United States v. Phillips, 527 F. Supp. 1361, 1364 (N.D. | 1 | 1 |
Thomas Greer v. City of Memphis, Tennesseegreen2 sentences2015Although we stated in Greer that the willfulness analysis “evaluates the validity of the refusing entity’s legal position supporting its refusal[,]” id. at 921 , we also remarked that “the finding that a municipality willfully withheld public documents requires evidence that the withholding entity acted consciously in furtherance of a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity.” Id. at 923 (citation omitted). 2015Although we stated in Greer that the willfulness analysis “evaluates the validity of the refusing entity’s legal position supporting its refusal[,]” id. at 921 , we also remarked that “the finding that a municipality willfully withheld public documents requires evidence that the withholding entity acted consciously in furtherance of a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity.” Id. at 923 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Arnold v. City of Chattanoogagreen1 sentence2013Arnold v. City of Chattanooga, 19 S.W.3d 779, 789 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). ‘Bad faith’ is defined as [t]he opposite of ‘good faith’, generally implying or involving actual or constructive fraud, or a design to mislead or deceive another, or a neglect or refusal to fulfill some duty or some contractual obligation, not prompted by an honest mistake as to one’s rights or duties, but by some interested or sinister motive. | 1 | 1 |
American Alliance Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Eagle Insurance Companygreen1 sentence2007Co., 92 F.3d 57, 61 (2d Cir. 1996) (“We see no reason to expand this Court’s willfulness standard to include careless or negligent errors in the default judgment context.”). | 1 | 1 |
Barber & McMurry, Inc. v. Top-Flite Development Corp.green1 sentence2007Corp. Inc., 720 S.W.2d 469, 471 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986) (Defense counsel knew the trial date, but elected not to attend trial because he had another trial scheduled in a different county.). -3- conduct that is flagrant and unexplained.4 This view of willfulness finds further support from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, setting forth the willfulness standard which our Supreme Court adopted in Barbee. | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Muslergreen2 sentences2007Barbee, 689 S.W.2d at 866 (quoting the willfulness standard from Davis v. Musler, 713 F.2d 907, 915 (2d Cir. 1983)). 3 Am. 2007Barbee, 689 S.W.2d at 866 (quoting the willfulness standard from Davis v. Musler, 713 F.2d 907, 915 (2d Cir. 1983)). 3 Am. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Alex Friedmann v. Marshall County, TN
green
1 sentence2017Id. at 436 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Cheek v. United States
green
1 sentence2009Id. at 204 , 111 S.Ct. 604 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Tennessee Department of Human Services v. Barbee
green
2 sentences2007Barbee, 689 S.W.2d at 866 (quoting the willfulness standard from Davis v. Musler, 713 F.2d 907, 915 (2d Cir. 1983)). 3 Am. 2007Barbee, 689 S.W.2d at 866 (quoting the willfulness standard from Davis v. Musler, 713 F.2d 907, 915 (2d Cir. 1983)). 3 Am. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
In Re SM
green
1 sentence2005In deciding if these grounds apply to a parent whose rights are subject to termination, the pivotal issue is whether the parent is a “legal parent.” In re S.M., 149 S.W.3d at 640-41 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.