10 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1946–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Morgangreen2 sentences2012See Colonial Pipeline, 263 S.W.3d at 845 . 2010This Court recently reiterated that the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine dictates that, if a claim “is first cognizable by an administrative agency ... the courts will not interfere ‘until the administrative process has run its course.’ ” Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Morgan, 263 S.W.3d 827, 838 (Tenn.2008) (quoting *236 United States v. W. | 2 | 3 |
Bracey v. Woodsgreen2 sentences2015Thomas v. State Bd. of Equalization, 940 S.W.2d 563, 566 (Tenn.1997); Bracey v. Woods, 571 S.W.2d 828, 829 (Tenn. 1978). 2005See Thomas v. State Bd. of Equalization, 940 S.W.2d 563, 566 (Tenn.1997); Bracey v. Woods, 571 S.W.2d 828, 829 (Tenn.1978). | 2 | 2 |
Thomas v. State Board of Equalizationgreen2 sentences2015Thomas v. State Bd. of Equalization, 940 S.W.2d 563, 566 (Tenn.1997); Bracey v. Woods, 571 S.W.2d 828, 829 (Tenn. 1978). 2005See Thomas v. State Bd. of Equalization, 940 S.W.2d 563, 566 (Tenn.1997); Bracey v. Woods, 571 S.W.2d 828, 829 (Tenn.1978). | 2 | 2 |
E. Ron Pickard v. Tennessee Water Quality Control Boardgreen1 sentence2015“Courts traditionally ... give great deference to an agency’s interpretation of its own rules because the agency possesses special knowledge, expertise, and experience with regard to the subject matter of the rule.” Pickard v. Tenn. Water Quality Control Bd., 424 S.W.3d 511, 522 (Tenn.2013). | 1 | 1 |
Cherokee Country Club, Inc. v. City of Knoxvillegreen1 sentence2005Cherokee Country Club, Inc. v. City of Knoxville, 152 S.W.3d 466, 479 (Tenn. 2004) (holding that the issuance of a writ of mandamus was proper even though the landowner had not appealed the denial of a demolition permit to the local board of zoning appeals because the landowner challenged the validity of an ordinance, not the official’s discretion in denying the permit); Poteat v. Bowman, 491 S.W.2d at 77, 80 (Tenn. 1973) (stating that a claim that an ordinance on which a permit denial is based is unconstitutional is not subject to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement). | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Poteat v. Bowmangreen1 sentence2005Cherokee Country Club, Inc. v. City of Knoxville, 152 S.W.3d 466, 479 (Tenn. 2004) (holding that the issuance of a writ of mandamus was proper even though the landowner had not appealed the denial of a demolition permit to the local board of zoning appeals because the landowner challenged the validity of an ordinance, not the official’s discretion in denying the permit); Poteat v. Bowman, 491 S.W.2d at 77, 80 (Tenn. 1973) (stating that a claim that an ordinance on which a permit denial is based is unconstitutional is not subject to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ready Mix, USA, LLC v. Jefferson County, Tennessee
green
1 sentence2020In the absence of a statutory mandate, the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine “is a matter of judicial discretion.” Ready Mix, 380 S.W.3d at 64 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.
green
2 sentences2015The Court-in Colonial Pipeline described the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies: Justice Brandéis referred to it .as.-“the long settled rule of judicial administration that no one is entitled to judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has been exhausted.” Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U.S. 41, 50-51 , 58 S.Ct. 459 , 82 L.Ed. 638 (1938). 2015The Court-in Colonial Pipeline described the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies: Justice Brandéis referred to it .as.-“the long settled rule of judicial administration that no one is entitled to judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has been exhausted.” Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U.S. 41, 50-51 , 58 S.Ct. 459 , 82 L.Ed. 638 (1938). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
McCarthy v. Madigan
red
2 sentences2008We acknowledge, however, that one of the exceptions to the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine is “when the administrative body is shown to be biased or has otherwise predetermined the issue before it.” McCarthy, 503 U.S. at 148-49 , 112 S.Ct. 1081 . 2008We acknowledge, however, that one of the exceptions to the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine is “when the administrative body is shown to be biased or has otherwise predetermined the issue before it.” McCarthy, 503 U.S. at 148-49 , 112 S.Ct. 1081 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Fort v. Dixie Oil Co.
green
2 sentences1946Fo rt v. Dixie Oil Co., 170 Tenn. 464 , 95 S. W. (2d) 931 . 1946Fo rt v. Dixie Oil Co., 170 Tenn. 464 , 95 S. W. (2d) 931 . | 1 | 1946–1946 |
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.