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 2001–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Harman v. Moore's Quality Snack Foods, Inc.green2 sentences2001For example, in Harman v. Moore’s Quality Snack Foods, Inc., 815 S.W.2d 519 (Tenn.Ct.App.1991), appeal denied (July 29, 1991), this Court held that the exclusive remedy provision of the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Act (the “TWCA”) did not bar a THRA claim or any damages under the Act. 2001For example, in Harman v. Moore’s Quality Snack Foods, Inc., 815 S.W.2d 519 (Tenn.Ct.App.1991), appeal denied (July 29, 1991), this Court held that the exclusive remedy provision of the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Act (the “TWCA”) did not bar a THRA claim or any damages under the Act. | 2 | 2 |
Omoniyi Adebisi v. University of Tennesseegreen2 sentences2025Goree, 490 S.W.3d at 449 ; see also, e.g., Adebisi v. Univ. of Tennessee, 341 F. App’x 111, 112 (6th Cir. 2009). 2025Goree, 490 S.W.3d at 449 ; see also, e.g., Adebisi v. Univ. of Tennessee, 341 F. App’x 111, 112 (6th Cir. 2009). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. City of Burnsgreen1 sentence2020See Williams v. City of Burns, 465 S.W.3d 96, 110 (Tenn. 2015) (“[T]he TPPA requires the plaintiff to prove that retaliation for the protected conduct was the sole reason [for the termination of employment].”). 10 Appellant asserts that this Court held in Whitney v. First Call Ambulance Service, et al., No. M2018-01155-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 2026495 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2019), that the elements of a TPPA claim and THRA claim are “nearly identical.” The Whitney opinion does not state this. | 1 | 1 |
Weber v. Mosesgreen2 sentences2017Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-101 (a)(1); Ferguson v. Middle Tennessee State Univ., 451 S.W.3d 375, 380-81 (Tenn. 2014); Weber v. Moses, 938 S.W.2d 387, 390 (Tenn. 1996). 11 employment benefits; or a significant reduction of material responsibilities.” Barnes, 48 S.W.3d at 707 . 2017Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-101 (a)(1); Ferguson v. Middle Tennessee State Univ., 451 S.W.3d 375, 380-81 (Tenn. 2014); Weber v. Moses, 938 S.W.2d 387, 390 (Tenn. 1996). 11 employment benefits; or a significant reduction of material responsibilities.” Barnes, 48 S.W.3d at 707 . | 1 | 1 |
Jim Ferguson v. Middle Tennessee State Universitygreen2 sentences2017Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-101 (a)(1); Ferguson v. Middle Tennessee State Univ., 451 S.W.3d 375, 380-81 (Tenn. 2014); Weber v. Moses, 938 S.W.2d 387, 390 (Tenn. 1996). 11 employment benefits; or a significant reduction of material responsibilities.” Barnes, 48 S.W.3d at 707 . 2017Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-101 (a)(1); Ferguson v. Middle Tennessee State Univ., 451 S.W.3d 375, 380-81 (Tenn. 2014); Weber v. Moses, 938 S.W.2d 387, 390 (Tenn. 1996). 11 employment benefits; or a significant reduction of material responsibilities.” Barnes, 48 S.W.3d at 707 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sligergreen1 sentence2016“The most basic principle of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent without unduly restricting or expanding a statute's coverage beyond its intended scope.” Owens v. State, 908 S.W.2d 923, 926 (Tenn. 1995) (citing State v. Sliger, 846 S.W.2d 262, 263 (Tenn.1993)). | 1 | 1 |
Owens v. Stategreen1 sentence2016“The most basic principle of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent without unduly restricting or expanding a statute's coverage beyond its intended scope.” Owens v. State, 908 S.W.2d 923, 926 (Tenn. 1995) (citing State v. Sliger, 846 S.W.2d 262, 263 (Tenn.1993)). | 1 | 1 |
Hannah v. Pitney Bowes, Inc.green2 sentences2014See Hannah v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 739 F.Supp. 1131, 1133 (E.D.Tenn.1989) (analyzing the THRA and holding that it included a broad right to trial by jury for sex discrimination claims pursuant to section 21-1-103, notwithstanding the unavailability at that time of jury trials for claims brought under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act); Farrow, 2001 WL 935467 , at *5 (relying on section 21-1-103 to find a right to trial by jury on a THRA claim against a governmental entity); Sledge v. Phillips, No. 89-367-II, 1990 WL 62852 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2014See Hannah v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 739 F.Supp. 1131, 1133 (E.D.Tenn.1989) (analyzing the THRA and holding that it included a broad right to trial by jury for sex discrimination claims pursuant to section 21-1-103, notwithstanding the unavailability at that time of jury trials for claims brought under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act); Farrow, 2001 WL 935467 , at *5 (relying on section 21-1-103 to find a right to trial by jury on a THRA claim against a governmental entity); Sledge v. Phillips, No. 89-367-II, 1990 WL 62852 (Tenn.Ct.App. | 1 | 1 |
Doyle v. Frostgreen2 sentences2014App.1995) (holding that the doctrine of sovereign immunity precludes application of the saving statute to save a THRA claim against the State in its capacity as an employer because the saving statute does not expressly apply to the State); cf. Doyle v. Frost, 49 S.W.3d 853, 859 (Tenn. 2001) (explaining the limited rationale of these saving statute cases and declining to apply this rationale to foreclose application of Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 15.03 to GTLA claims). 2014App.1995) (holding that the doctrine of sovereign immunity precludes application of the saving statute to save a THRA claim against the State in its capacity as an employer because the saving statute does not expressly apply to the State); cf. Doyle v. Frost, 49 S.W.3d 853, 859 (Tenn. 2001) (explaining the limited rationale of these saving statute cases and declining to apply this rationale to foreclose application of Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 15.03 to GTLA claims). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mitch Goree v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
green
2 sentences2025Goree, 490 S.W.3d at 449 ; see also, e.g., Adebisi v. Univ. of Tennessee, 341 F. App’x 111, 112 (6th Cir. 2009). 2025Goree, 490 S.W.3d at 449 ; see also, e.g., Adebisi v. Univ. of Tennessee, 341 F. App’x 111, 112 (6th Cir. 2009). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Barnes v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.
green
2 sentences2017Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-101 (a)(1); Ferguson v. Middle Tennessee State Univ., 451 S.W.3d 375, 380-81 (Tenn. 2014); Weber v. Moses, 938 S.W.2d 387, 390 (Tenn. 1996). 11 employment benefits; or a significant reduction of material responsibilities.” Barnes, 48 S.W.3d at 707 . 2017Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-101 (a)(1); Ferguson v. Middle Tennessee State Univ., 451 S.W.3d 375, 380-81 (Tenn. 2014); Weber v. Moses, 938 S.W.2d 387, 390 (Tenn. 1996). 11 employment benefits; or a significant reduction of material responsibilities.” Barnes, 48 S.W.3d at 707 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.