Supreme Court recognized rule in Tennessee

2007In Lam v. Smith, 891 S.W.2d 207 (Tenn.1994), the Supreme Court recognized an exception to the general Arrowood rule in cases where (1) the plaintiff lacked knowledge that the defendant is an out-of-state resident, and (2) the plaintiff had exercised due diligence in trying to ascertain the location of the defendant, but nevertheless remained unaware of the defendant’s nonresident status.

2007In Lam v. Smith, 891 S.W.2d 207 (Tenn. 1994), the Supreme Court recognized an exception to the general Arrowood rule in cases where (1) the plaintiff lacked knowledge that the defendant is an out-of-state resident, and (2) the plaintiff had exercised due diligence in trying to ascertain the location of the defendant, but nevertheless remained unaware of the defendant’s nonresident status.

2010However, in Gene Taylor & Sons Plumbing Co. v. Corondolet Realty Trust, 611 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn.1981), the Supreme Court recognized an exception *463 “when forfeiture is required neither by the licensing statute nor by the policy underlying that statute” if necessary to “avoid ‘unreasonable penalties and forfeitures.’ ” Id. at 577 .

2010However, in Gene Taylor & Sons Plumbing Co. v. Corondolet Realty Trust, 611 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn.1981), the Supreme Court recognized an exception *463 “when forfeiture is required neither by the licensing statute nor by the policy underlying that statute” if necessary to “avoid ‘unreasonable penalties and forfeitures.’ ” Id. at 577 .

2002In Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208 (Tenn. 1993) at page 214 the Supreme Court recognized those factors which must be addressed under Rule 56: Rule 56 comes into play only when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

1999Co., 614 S.W.2d 566 (Tenn. 1981), however, the Supreme Court recognized an exception to the strict application of the statute, where the plaintiff pursued his tort claim against an apparently insured defendant without serving his own carrier, but after obtaining a judgment, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant was in fact uninsured.

1992In determining whether the clause was a covenant running with the land or a mere personal agreement, the Supreme Court recognized the rule that “covenants restricting the use of land and preventing its free and unrestricted enjoyment are not favored, and will be strictly construed against the restriction.” 194 Tenn. at 269 , 250 S.W.2d at 367 .

1992In determining whether the clause was a covenant running with the land or a mere personal agreement, the Supreme Court recognized the rule that “covenants restricting the use of land and preventing its free and unrestricted enjoyment are not favored, and will be strictly construed against the restriction.” 194 Tenn. at 269 , 250 S.W.2d at 367 .

1986In Ray v. Scheibert, 224 Tenn. 99 , 450 S.W.2d 578 (1969), the Supreme Court recognized the rule announced in Hudson v. Shoulders, 164 Tenn. 70 , 45 S.W.2d 1072 (1931) that, in order for the statute of limitations to be tolled by fraudulent concealment, the cause of action must be known to the defendant and must be concealed by him.

1986In Ray v. Scheibert, 224 Tenn. 99 , 450 S.W.2d 578 (1969), the Supreme Court recognized the rule announced in Hudson v. Shoulders, 164 Tenn. 70 , 45 S.W.2d 1072 (1931) that, in order for the statute of limitations to be tolled by fraudulent concealment, the cause of action must be known to the defendant and must be concealed by him.

1986In Clark v. American National Bank & Trust Co. of Chattanooga, Tenn.App. 1974, 531 S.W.2d 563 , it was held that, in the absence of a fiduciary relationship, concealment to toll the statute of limitations must be evidenced by some overt act.

1986In Ray v. Scheibert, 224 Tenn. 99 , 450 S.W.2d 578 (1969), the Supreme Court recognized the rule announced in Hudson v. Shoulders, 164 Tenn. 70 , 45 S.W.2d 1072 (1931) that, in order for the statute of limitations to be tolled by fraudulent concealment, the cause of action must be known to the defendant and must be concealed by him.

1986In Ray v. Scheibert, 224 Tenn. 99 , 450 S.W.2d 578 (1969), the Supreme Court recognized the rule announced in Hudson v. Shoulders, 164 Tenn. 70 , 45 S.W.2d 1072 (1931) that, in order for the statute of limitations to be tolled by fraudulent concealment, the cause of action must be known to the defendant and must be concealed by him.