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 1934–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
M. D. Smith D/B/A M. D. Smith Construction Company v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Companygreen2 sentences2002For example, in Smith v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., 639 F.2d 1235, 1241 (5th Cir.1981), the court found that damage to a tenant’s building located on property adjoining the leasehold was covered by an indemnity clause in the lease. 2001For example, in Smith v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., 639 F.2d 1235, 1241 (5th Cir. 1981), the court found that damage to a tenant’s building located on property adjoining the leasehold was covered by an indemnity clause in the lease. | 2 | 2 |
Travelers Insurance Co. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2018Co. of New York, the supreme court considered an indemnity claim brought by Travelers, the workers’ compensation insurance carrier of a contractor, against Fidelity, the insurer of a subcontractor. 409 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tenn. 1966). | 1 | 1 |
Schweber Electronics v. National Semiconductor Corp.green1 sentence2009See Schweber Elecs. v. Nat’l Semiconductor Corp., 174 *344 Ariz. 406, 850 P.2d 119, 125 (Ariz.Ct.App.1992); Majors v. Kalo Labs., Inc., 407 F.Supp. 20, 24-25 (M.D.Ala.1975). | 1 | 1 |
Majors v. Kalo Laboratories, Inc.green1 sentence2009See Schweber Elecs. v. Nat’l Semiconductor Corp., 174 *344 Ariz. 406, 850 P.2d 119, 125 (Ariz.Ct.App.1992); Majors v. Kalo Labs., Inc., 407 F.Supp. 20, 24-25 (M.D.Ala.1975). | 1 | 1 |
Howard P. Foley Co. v. Coxgreen1 sentence2009In support of this argument, Argo cites a Texas case holding that “[f]or a contract clause to preclude indemnity to an innocent retailer from the manufacturer of a defective product, the clause must include within its terms that such indemnity is specifically foreclosed.” Howard P. Foley Co. v. Cox, 679 S.W.2d 58, 63 (Tex.App.1984) (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 |
|---|---|---|
Ken Petroleum Corp. v. Questor Drilling Corp.
green
1 sentence2016Id. at 354-55 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Hardimon v. Cullum & Maxey Camping Centers, Inc.
green
1 sentence2009Id. at 774 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Houseboating Corp. of America v. Marshall
green
2 sentences2009Hardimon discussed Houseboating Corp. of America v. Marshall, 553 S.W.2d 588 (Tenn.1977), a case in which the Tennessee Supreme Court permitted a houseboat dealer to assert an indemnity claim against the houseboat manufacturer to recover for the dealer’s losses incurred after a customer was allowed to rescind the sales contract on a defective houseboat. 2009Hardimon discussed Houseboating Corp. of America v. Marshall, 553 S.W.2d 588 (Tenn.1977), a case in which the Tennessee Supreme Court permitted a houseboat dealer to assert an indemnity claim against the houseboat manufacturer to recover for the dealer’s losses incurred after a customer was allowed to rescind the sales contract on a defective houseboat. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Teter v. Republic Parking System, Inc.
green
1 sentence2006Discussion In Teter v. Republic Parking System, Inc., 181 S.W.3d 330 (Tenn.2005), our Supreme Court recently reiterated the standards applicable when appellate courts are reviewing the granting of a motion for summary judgment. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Kroger Company v. Giem
green
2 sentences1973In Kroger Co. v. Giem, 215 Tenn. 459 , 387 S.W.2d 620 (1964), we held it was not against public policy to contract to be indemnified against one’s own negligence but such a provision in indemnification contracts would have to be expressly clear and in unequivocal terms. 1973In Kroger Co. v. Giem, 215 Tenn. 459 , 387 S.W.2d 620 (1964), we held it was not against public policy to contract to be indemnified against one’s own negligence but such a provision in indemnification contracts would have to be expressly clear and in unequivocal terms. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Fitzgerald v. Globe Indemnity Co. of New York
green
2 sentences1934The point was expressly made and determined against the contention of the insurer in Fitzgerald v. Globe Indemnity Co. (California District Court of Appeals; hearing denied by the Supreme Court), 84 Cal. App., 689 , 258 Pac., 458, 461 , wherein the court said: “No logical reason appears, however, 'why the same rule should not be applied where the policy provides for both total and partial disability in order to make the total disability clause ‘operative and to prevent a forfeiture’ of the indemnity provided by that clause. 1934The point was expressly made and determined against the contention of the insurer in Fitzgerald v. Globe Indemnity Co. (California District Court of Appeals; hearing denied by the Supreme Court), 84 Cal. App., 689 , 258 Pac., 458, 461 , wherein the court said: “No logical reason appears, however, 'why the same rule should not be applied where the policy provides for both total and partial disability in order to make the total disability clause ‘operative and to prevent a forfeiture’ of the indemnity provided by that clause. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
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.