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.
10 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1992–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohiogreen2 sentences2002In other words, “under current law — as announced in Zauderer — as long as the disclosure requirement is reasonably related to the state’s interest in preventing deception of consumers, and not unduly burdensome, it should be upheld.” Id. 2001Responding to the appellant’s argument that the Ohio Supreme Court’s disclosure rule in that case was “unduly burdensome,” the Court stated that “[t]he vagueness of the Ohio Supreme Court’s opinion regarding precisely what an attorney must disclose in an advertisement mentioning a contingent fee is . . . unfortunate.” Zauderer, 471 U.S. at 653 n.15, 105 S. Ct. at 2283 (suggesting that Ohio’s failure to articulate the requirements of its disclosure rule would prohibit disbarment of an attorney who violated the rule on due process and First Amendment grounds). | 2 | 3 |
Kahn v. Kahngreen2 sentences1992In Kahn v. Kahn, 756 S.W.2d 685 (Tenn.1988), however, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that the disclosure requirement was incorporated into the statute’s mandate that in order for an ante-nuptial agreement to be enforceable, both spouses must enter the agreement “freely, knowledgeably and in good faith and without exertion of duress or undue influ-ence_” The court reasoned that the disclosure requirement is consistent with the statute because “numerous factual scenarios could occur in which the failure to make a full disclosure of assets, liabilities and values would breach the statutory requ 1992In Kahn v. Kahn, 756 S.W.2d 685 (Tenn.1988), however, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that the disclosure requirement was incorporated into the statute’s mandate that in order for an ante-nuptial agreement to be enforceable, both spouses must enter the agreement “freely, knowledgeably and in good faith and without exertion of duress or undue influ-ence_” The court reasoned that the disclosure requirement is consistent with the statute because “numerous factual scenarios could occur in which the failure to make a full disclosure of assets, liabilities and values would breach the statutory requ | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Alessio v. Crook
green
2 sentences2025Small, 2008 WL 360925 , at *12; Alessio, 633 S.W.2d at 779-80 . a. 2008Id. at 779 . | 2 | 2008–2025 |
Ibanez v. Florida Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation, Bd. of Accountancy
green
2 sentences2001Although the Court concluded that the disclosure requirement was unconstitutional because the Florida Board had failed to justify the need for such regulation, it also noted that the disclosure requirement was too burdensome: “The detail required in the disclaimer currently described by the Board effectively rules out notation of the ‘specialist’ designation on a business card or letterhead, or in a yellow pages listing.” Id., 512 U.S. at 146-47 , 114 S. Ct. 2090 - 91. 2001Although the Court concluded that the disclosure requirement was unconstitutional because the Florida Board had failed to justify the need for such regulation, it also noted that the disclosure requirement was too burdensome: “The detail required in the disclaimer currently described by the Board effectively rules out notation of the ‘specialist’ designation on a business card or letterhead, or in a yellow pages listing.” Id., 512 U.S. at 146-47 , 114 S. Ct. 2090 - 91. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Missourians for Fiscal, etc. v. James Klahr
green
1 sentence2019Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Randolph v. Randolph
green
1 sentence2014The requirement of a “full and fair disclosure of the nature, extent and value” of a proponent spouse’s holdings must satisfy the following principles enumerated in Randolph: (1) “an agreement to marry gives rise to a confidential relationship,” and therefore the parties “do not deal at arms’ length and must exercise candor and good faith in all matters bearing upon the contract”; (2) “parties to an antenuptial agreement are very often ill- matched in terms of bargaining power,” and the disclosure requirement provides a measure of fairness to the party in the weaker position; and (3) because “ | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Estate of Stephens v. GALEN HEALTH CARE
green
1 sentence2014Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Byrd
green
1 sentence2000Byrd, 820 S.W.2d at 741 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.