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.
7 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1950–2009 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 |
|---|---|---|
Texas Co. v. Aycockgreen2 sentences1994In Glover v. Hardeman County, 713 S.W.2d 73 (Tenn.App.1985), this Court discussed the requirement of notice, stating: In Texas Co. v. Aycock, (June 1950), 190 Tenn. 16 , 227 S.W.2d 41, 46 , the court considered what constituted notice under the law of Tennessee.- There the court stated: In our State, as far back as the case of Woodfolk v. Blount, 4 Tenn. 147, 151 , 9 Am.Dec. 736, it was held: “When anything appears which would put a man of ordinary prudence upon inquiry, the law presumes that such inquiry was actually made, and therefore fixes the notice upon him as to all legal consequences” 1994In Glover v. Hardeman County, 713 S.W.2d 73 (Tenn.App.1985), this Court discussed the requirement of notice, stating: In Texas Co. v. Aycock, (June 1950), 190 Tenn. 16 , 227 S.W.2d 41, 46 , the court considered what constituted notice under the law of Tennessee.- There the court stated: In our State, as far back as the case of Woodfolk v. Blount, 4 Tenn. 147, 151 , 9 Am.Dec. 736, it was held: “When anything appears which would put a man of ordinary prudence upon inquiry, the law presumes that such inquiry was actually made, and therefore fixes the notice upon him as to all legal consequences” | 1 | 3 |
Blevins v. Johnson Countygreen1 sentence2009Williams, 212 S.W.2d at 901 ; see also Texas Co. v. Aycock, 190 Tenn. 16 , 227 S.W.2d 41, 46 (1950) (stating “whatever is sufficient to put a person upon inquiry, is notice of all the facts to which that *280 inquiry will lead, when prosecuted with reasonable diligence and good faith.” [emphasis in original]); City Finance Co. v. Perry, 195 Tenn. 81 , 257 S.W.2d 1, 2 (1953); Blevins v. Johnson County, 746 S.W.2d 678, 682-83 (Tenn. 1988). | 1 | 1 |
City Finance Co. v. Perrygreen2 sentences2009Williams, 212 S.W.2d at 901 ; see also Texas Co. v. Aycock, 190 Tenn. 16 , 227 S.W.2d 41, 46 (1950) (stating “whatever is sufficient to put a person upon inquiry, is notice of all the facts to which that *280 inquiry will lead, when prosecuted with reasonable diligence and good faith.” [emphasis in original]); City Finance Co. v. Perry, 195 Tenn. 81 , 257 S.W.2d 1, 2 (1953); Blevins v. Johnson County, 746 S.W.2d 678, 682-83 (Tenn. 1988). 2009Williams, 212 S.W.2d at 901 ; see also Texas Co. v. Aycock, 190 Tenn. 16 , 227 S.W.2d 41, 46 (1950) (stating “whatever is sufficient to put a person upon inquiry, is notice of all the facts to which that *280 inquiry will lead, when prosecuted with reasonable diligence and good faith.” [emphasis in original]); City Finance Co. v. Perry, 195 Tenn. 81 , 257 S.W.2d 1, 2 (1953); Blevins v. Johnson County, 746 S.W.2d 678, 682-83 (Tenn. 1988). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Covington v. Anderson
green
2 sentences1968In the case of Woodfolk v. Blount, 4 Tenn. 147 (1816), the Court said: "When anything appears which would put a man of ordinary prudence upon inquiry, the law presumes that such inquiry was actually made, and therefore fixes notice upon him as to all legal consequences." Again, in Covington v. Anderson, 84 Tenn. 310 (1886), the Court said: "The rule upon the question of notice is, that whatever is sufficient to put a person upon inquiry, is notice of all the facts to which that inquiry would lead when prosecuted with reasonable diligence and in good faith." It was said in the Gatlinburg case: 1968In the case of Woodfolk v. Blount, 4 Tenn. 147 (1816), the Court said: “When anything appears which would put a man of ordinary prudence upon inquiry, the law presumes that such inquiry was actually made, and therefore fixes notice upon him as to all legal consequences.” ■ Again, in Covington v. Anderson, 84 Tenn. 310 (1886), the Court said: “The rule upon the question of notice is, that whatever is sufficient to put a person upon inquiry, is notice of all the facts to which that inquiry would lead when prosecuted with reasonable diligence and in good faith. ’ ’ It was said in the G-atlinburg | 4 | 1966–1994 |
Woodfolk v. Blount
neutral
2 sentences1994In Glover v. Hardeman County, 713 S.W.2d 73 (Tenn.App.1985), this Court discussed the requirement of notice, stating: In Texas Co. v. Aycock, (June 1950), 190 Tenn. 16 , 227 S.W.2d 41, 46 , the court considered what constituted notice under the law of Tennessee.- There the court stated: In our State, as far back as the case of Woodfolk v. Blount, 4 Tenn. 147, 151 , 9 Am.Dec. 736, it was held: “When anything appears which would put a man of ordinary prudence upon inquiry, the law presumes that such inquiry was actually made, and therefore fixes the notice upon him as to all legal consequences” 1985There the court stated: In our State, as far back as the case of Woodfolk v. Blount, 4 Tenn. 147, 151 , 9 Am.Dec. 736, it was held: “When anything appears which would put a man of ordinary prudence upon inquiry, the law presumes that such inquiry was actually made, and therefore fixes the notice upon him as to all legal consequences”. | 4 | 1966–1994 |
Merritt v. Duncan
neutral
2 sentences1985In Merritt v. Duncan, 54 Tenn. 156, 164 , 19 Am.Rep. 612 , it was held: “It is considered that whatever is sufficient to put a person upon inquiry is equivalent to notice; and that when he has sufficient information to lead him to the knowledge of a fact, he shall be presumed to be cognizant of the fact.” (Emphasis supplied.) In Covington v. Anderson, 84 Tenn. 310, 319 , the rule is thus stated: “The rule upon the question of notice is, that whatever is sufficient to put a person upon inquiry, is notice of all the facts to which that inquiry mil lead, which prosecuted with reasonable diligence 1966In Merritt v. Duncan, 54 Tenn. 156, 164 , 19 Am.Rep. 612 , it was held: ‘It is considered that whatever is sufficient to put a person upon inquiry is equivalent■ to notice; and that when he has sufficient information to lead him to the knowledge of a fact, he shall be pre sumed to be cognizant of the fact.’ (Emphasis supplied.) In Covington v. Anderson, 84 Tenn. 310, 319 , the rule is thus stated: ‘The rule upon the question of notice is, that whatever is sufficient to put a person upon inquiry, is notice of all the facts to which that inquiry will lead, when prosecuted with reasonable diligen | 3 | 1950–1985 |
Williams v. Title Guaranty & Trust Co.
green
1 sentence2009Williams, 212 S.W.2d at 901 ; see also Texas Co. v. Aycock, 190 Tenn. 16 , 227 S.W.2d 41, 46 (1950) (stating “whatever is sufficient to put a person upon inquiry, is notice of all the facts to which that *280 inquiry will lead, when prosecuted with reasonable diligence and good faith.” [emphasis in original]); City Finance Co. v. Perry, 195 Tenn. 81 , 257 S.W.2d 1, 2 (1953); Blevins v. Johnson County, 746 S.W.2d 678, 682-83 (Tenn. 1988). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Glover v. Hardeman County
green
1 sentence1994In Glover v. Hardeman County, 713 S.W.2d 73 (Tenn.App.1985), this Court discussed the requirement of notice, stating: In Texas Co. v. Aycock, (June 1950), 190 Tenn. 16 , 227 S.W.2d 41, 46 , the court considered what constituted notice under the law of Tennessee.- There the court stated: In our State, as far back as the case of Woodfolk v. Blount, 4 Tenn. 147, 151 , 9 Am.Dec. 736, it was held: “When anything appears which would put a man of ordinary prudence upon inquiry, the law presumes that such inquiry was actually made, and therefore fixes the notice upon him as to all legal consequences” | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.