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.
9 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1914–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Walker v. Sunrise Pontiac-GMC Truck, Inc.green2 sentences2023Walker v. Sunrise Pontiac–GMC Truck, Inc., 249 S.W.3d 301, 309 (Tenn. 2008)). 2017Walker v. Sunrise Pontiac-GMC Truck, Inc., 249 S.W.3d 301, 309 (Tenn. 2008). | 6 | 6 |
Curtis Myers v. Amisub (SFH), Inc., d/b/a St. Francis Hospitalgreen2 sentences2014“The leading rule governing our construction of any statute is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature’s intent.” Myers v. AMI-SUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300, 308 (Tenn.2012) (citation omitted). “[W]e start with an examination of the statute’s language,” id. (citation omitted), and “presume that the legislature intended to give each word of the statute its full effect.” Stevens ex rel. 2014“The leading rule governing our construction of any statute is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature’s intent.” Myers v. AMI-SUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300, 308 (Tenn.2012) (citation omitted). “[W]e start with an examination of the statute’s language,” id. (citation omitted), and “presume that the legislature intended to give each word of the statute its full effect.” Stevens ex rel. | 1 | 2 |
Michael Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., d/b/a Beaman Dodge Chrysler Jeepgreen1 sentence2017Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., 356 S.W.3d 889, 894 (Tenn. 2011). *** The leading rule governing our construction of any statute is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature‟s intent. | 1 | 1 |
Stevens ex rel. Stevens v. Hickman Community Health Care Services, Inc.green1 sentence2014Stevens v. Hickman Cmty. Health Care Servs., Inc., 418 S.W.3d 547, 553 (Tenn.2013) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Mitchell
neutral
1 sentence1914Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Mitchell, 91 Tex. 454 , 44 S. W, 274, 40 L. | 1 | 1914–1914 |
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.