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.
8 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1967–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.green2 sentences2005The actual damage requirement was discussed by the United States Supreme Court in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 , 94 S.Ct. 2997 , 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974): We need not define “actual injury,” as trial courts have wide experience in framing appropriate jury instructions in tort actions. 2005The actual damage requirement was discussed by the United States Supreme Court in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 , 94 S.Ct. 2997 , 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974): We need not define “actual injury,” as trial courts have wide experience in framing appropriate jury instructions in tort actions. | 1 | 5 |
Mitchell v. Usiltongreen2 sentences2013Mitchell v. Usilton, 146 Tenn. at 426, 242 S.W. at 650-51. 2013Mitchell v. Usilton, 146 Tenn. at 426 , 242 S.W. at 650- 51. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Marie Von Hoffburg v. Clifford Alexander, Etc.
green
1 sentence2015Von Hoffburg v. Alexander, 615 F.2d 633 , *766 641-42 (5th Cir.1980); Barlow v. Marion Cnty. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Hickman v. Continental Baking Co.
green
1 sentence2013Based on this Court’s decisions in Hickman v. Continental Baking Co., 143 S.W.3d 72 (Tenn. 2004), and Graves v. Cocke County, 24 S.W.3d 285 (Tenn. 2000), counsel for MasterStaff took the position that MasterStaff would be entitled to receive from Mr. Cooper’s recovery from the third-party defendants not only the workers’ compensation benefits it had paid up to the time of the recovery, but also the cost of future medical expenses that were known or calculable at the time of the recovery. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Graves v. Cocke County
green
2 sentences2013Based on this Court’s decisions in Hickman v. Continental Baking Co., 148 S.W.3d 72 (Tenn.2004), and Graves v. Cocke County, 24 S.W.3d 285 (Tenn.2000), counsel for MasterStaff took the position that MasterStaff would be entitled to receive from Mr. Cooper’s recovery from the third-party defendants not only the workers’ compensation benefits it had paid up to the time of the recovery, but also the cost of future medical expenses that were known or calculable at the time of the recovery. 2013Based on this Court’s decisions in Hickman v. Continental Baking Co., 143 S.W.3d 72 (Tenn. 2004), and Graves v. Cocke County, 24 S.W.3d 285 (Tenn. 2000), counsel for MasterStaff took the position that MasterStaff would be entitled to receive from Mr. Cooper’s recovery from the third-party defendants not only the workers’ compensation benefits it had paid up to the time of the recovery, but also the cost of future medical expenses that were known or calculable at the time of the recovery. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
cluster 238001
neutral
1 sentence1967Counsel for plaintiff relys heavily on the case of United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Craig County Bank (10th Circuit Court of App., 1955), 227 F.2d 799 , as authority for the proposition that, as a matter of law, the doctrine of waiver and estoppel may be applied specifically to sections 6 and 12 of the policy involved in the instant case. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Henry v. Southern Fire & Casualty Company
green
2 sentences1967In Henry v. Southern Fire and Casualty Co., 46 Tenn. App. 335 , 330 S.W.2d 18 , this Court held that the issue should have been submitted to the jury in a case where the insurance company’s defense was that the damage for which claim was asserted was caused by a trailer not listed in insured’s policy, even though insured had told insuror’s agent, who was familiar with complainant’s business, that he wanted full coverage on all of his equipment. 1967In Henry v. Southern Fire and Casualty Co., 46 Tenn. App. 335 , 330 S.W.2d 18 , this Court held that the issue should have been submitted to the jury in a case where the insurance company’s defense was that the damage for which claim was asserted was caused by a trailer not listed in insured’s policy, even though insured had told insuror’s agent, who was familiar with complainant’s business, that he wanted full coverage on all of his equipment. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.