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 1 courts 2015–2025 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Brenda Benz-Elliott v. Barrett Enterprises, LPgreen2 sentences2025Our Supreme Court has further held that “alternative claims may well be subject to differing statutes of limitations” and that “in choosing the applicable statute of limitations, courts must ascertain the gravamen of each claim, not the gravamen of the complaint in its entirety.” Benz-Elliott v. Barrett Enters., LP, 456 S.W.3d 140, 148-49 (Tenn. 2015). 2019Thus, the question is which statute of limitations applies to the various claims asserted against the defendants. “[I]n choosing the applicable statute of limitations, courts must ascertain the gravamen of each claim, not the gravamen of the complaint in its entirety.” Benz-Elliott v. Barrett Enterprises, LP, 456 S.W.3d 140, 149 (Tenn. 2015). | 7 | 8 |
Mid-South Industries, Inc. v. Martin MacHine & Tool, Inc.green1 sentence2022Black v. Sussman, No. M2010-01810-COA-R3- CV, 2011 WL 2410237 , at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 9, 2011); Bluff Springs Apartments, Ltd. v. Peoples Bank of the South, No. E2009-01435-COA-R3- CV, 2010 WL 2106210 , at *10 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 26, 2010); Mid-South Indus., Inc. v. Martin Mach. & Tool, Inc., 342 S.W.3d 19, 31-32 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010); Craighead v. BlueCross BlueShield of Tenn., Inc., No. M2007- 01697-COA-R10-CV, 2008 WL 3069320 , at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2008); Lewis v. Caputo, No. E1999-01182-COA-R3-CV, 2000 WL 502833 , at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2000)[.] Id. at 147-49 (footno | 1 | 1 |
Lacy v. Mitchellgreen1 sentence2019Likewise, “application of the THCLA . . . should be considered with respect to each separate claim rather than with respect to the complaint as a whole.” Lacy v. Mitchell, 541 S.W.3d 55, 62 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). “[G]ravamen is not dependent upon the ‘designation’ or ‘form’ litigants ascribe to an action.” Benz-Elliott, 456 S.W.3d at 148 (quoting Redwing v. Catholic Bishop for Diocese of Memphis, 363 S.W.3d 436, 457 (Tenn. 2012)). | 1 | 1 |
Norman Redwing v. Catholic Bishop for the Diocese of Memphisgreen1 sentence2019Likewise, “application of the THCLA . . . should be considered with respect to each separate claim rather than with respect to the complaint as a whole.” Lacy v. Mitchell, 541 S.W.3d 55, 62 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). “[G]ravamen is not dependent upon the ‘designation’ or ‘form’ litigants ascribe to an action.” Benz-Elliott, 456 S.W.3d at 148 (quoting Redwing v. Catholic Bishop for Diocese of Memphis, 363 S.W.3d 436, 457 (Tenn. 2012)). | 1 | 1 |
William Thomas McFarland v. Michael S. Pembertongreen1 sentence2018McFarland v. Pemberton, 530 S.W.3d 76, 109 (Tenn. 2017). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.