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 1997–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Miller v. Niblackgreen1 sentence1998See id. at 542 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gunter v. Laboratory Corp. of America
green
2 sentences2011In Gunter, a suit involving allegations of negligence by a laboratory with regard to a paternity test, this Court observed that the distinguishing feature between ordinary negligence and medical malpractice cases is whether “a plaintiff’s claim is for injuries resulting from negligent medical treatment.” 121 S.W.3d at 640 . 2011In Gunter , a suit involving allegations of negligence by a laboratory with regard to a paternity test, this Court observed that the distinguishing feature between ordinary negligence and medical malpractice cases is whether “a plaintiffs claim is for injuries resulting from negligent medical treatment.” 121 S.W.3d at 640 . | 2 | 2008–2011 |
Steioff v. Steioff
green
2 sentences1997Although it can be argued, based on the holding in Steioff v. Steioff, 833 S.W.2d 94 (Tenn.App.1992), that the parties’ appearance before the juvenile court on the issue of child support was the initial appearance, we find the present action to be the first action between the parties concerning the paternity of [the child]. . . . 1997Although it can be argued, based on the holding in Steioff v. Steioff, 833 S.W.2d 94 (Tenn.App.1992), that the parties’ appearance before the juvenile court on the issue of child support was the initial appearance, we find the present action to be the first action between the parties concerning the paternity of [the child]. . . . | 2 | 1997–1997 |
Glanton v. Lord
green
1 sentence2019Id. at 396-97 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State Ex Rel. Whitley v. Lewis
green
1 sentence2010Whitley, 244 S.W.3d at 825 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Chance v. Gibson
green
1 sentence2004This Court recently addressed an issue similar to this case in Chance v. Gibson, 99 S.W.3d 108 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.