7 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. DeSelm v. Owingsgreen2 sentences2012The plaintiffs in DeSelm contended that the trial court should have held an in limine hearing to determine whether the plaintiffs should be permitted to proceed under the Bennett exception “regardless of whether the plaintiffs have standing under the general principle reiterated in Bennett.” DeSelm, 310 S.W.3d at 359 . 2012The plaintiffs in De-Selm contended that the trial court should have held an in limine hearing to determine whether the plaintiffs should be permitted to proceed under the Bennett exception “regardless of whether the plaintiffs have standing under the general principle reiterated in Bennett . ” DeSelm, 310 S.W.3d at 359 . | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bennett v. Stutts
green
2 sentences2010If the district attorney general decides not to bring the suit, “[i]t shall be the duty of the trial court . . . to conduct an in limine hearing designed to determine whether to permit plaintiffs to proceed.” Id. 2007Nevertheless, the Trial Court *145 found that Plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the validity of the Ordinance and granted the City’s Motion to Dismiss Count I of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint, stating that the district attorney general’s “refusal to bring this action was justified and not arbitrary, as being in the best interest of the public.” Based on our holding in Bennett v. Stutts, 521 S.W.2d 575 , we find that the Trial Court erred by not holding an in limine hearing to determine whether Plaintiff had standing to maintain a quo warranto action after the district attorney gener | 5 | 1981–2010 |
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.