52 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1996–2024 8 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wright v. City of Knoxvillegreen2 sentences2021Wright v. City of Knoxville, 898 S.W.2d 177, 181 (Tenn. 1995). 2014Wright v. City of Knoxville, 898 S.W.2d 177, 181 (Tenn. 1995); Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Nashville & Eastern R.R. | 8 | 8 |
Carvell v. Bottomsgreen2 sentences2007Carvell v. Bottoms, 900 S.W.2d 23, 26 (Tenn. 1995). 2007Burgess v. Harley, 934 S.W.2d 58, 62 (citing Carvell v. Bottoms, 900 S.W.2d 23, 26 (Tenn. 1995)). | 3 | 3 |
Burgess v. Harleygreen2 sentences2007Burgess v. Harley, 934 S.W.2d 58, 62 (citing Carvell v. Bottoms, 900 S.W.2d 23, 26 (Tenn. 1995)). 2007Burgess v. Harley, 934 S.W.2d 58, 62 (citing Carvell v. Bottoms, 900 S.W.2d 23, 26 (Tenn. 1995)). | 2 | 2 |
Houser v. Bi-Lo, Inc.green2 sentences2004Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(2) (Supp.2003); see also Houser v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 36 S.W.3d 68, 70-71 (Tenn.2001). 2004Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225 (e)(2) (Supp. 2003); see also Houser v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 36 S.W.3d 68, 70-71 (Tenn. 2001). | 2 | 2 |
Nelson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.green2 sentences2001See Nelson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 8 S.W.3d 625, 628 (Tenn.1999); Owens v. Truckstops of Am., 915 S.W.2d 420, 424 (Tenn. 1996). 2001See Nelson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 8 S.W.3d 625, 628 (Tenn. 1999); Owens v. Truckstops of Am., 915 S.W.2d 420, 424 (Tenn. 1996). | 2 | 2 |
Owens v. Truckstops of Americagreen2 sentences2001See Nelson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 8 S.W.3d 625, 628 (Tenn.1999); Owens v. Truckstops of Am., 915 S.W.2d 420, 424 (Tenn. 1996). 2001See Nelson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 8 S.W.3d 625, 628 (Tenn. 1999); Owens v. Truckstops of Am., 915 S.W.2d 420, 424 (Tenn. 1996). | 2 | 2 |
Campbell v. Florida Steel Corp.green2 sentences2019Campbell v. Florida Steel Corp., 919 S.W.2d 26, 35 (Tenn. 1996); Alliance for Native Am. 2005Campbell v. Florida Steel Corp., 919 S.W.2d 26 (Tenn.1996) and Tenn. R.App. | 1 | 14 |
State v. Odomgreen2 sentences2024STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review involving a motion to suppress is well-settled. “[A] trial court’s findings of fact in a suppression hearing will be upheld unless the evidence preponderates otherwise.” State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 23 (Tenn. 1996). 2004STANDARD OF REVIEW Our standard of review for a trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law on a motion to suppress evidence is set forth in State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18 (Tenn. 1996). | 1 | 2 |
Jackson v. Virginiared2 sentences2019STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard for appellate review of a claim challenging the sufficiency of the State’s evidence is “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (citing Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356, 362 (1972)); see Tenn. R. 2003P. 13(e); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274, 278 (Tenn.2000). | 1 | 2 |
Brown v. Oglegreen1 sentence2024STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review “from a trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss is de novo, with no presumption of correctness as to the trial court’s legal conclusions, and all allegations of fact in the complaint below are taken as true.” Brown v. Ogle, 46 S.W.3d 721, 726 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (citing Stein v. Davidson Hotel Co., 945 S.W.2d 714, 716 (Tenn. 1997). | 1 | 1 |
Curry v. City of Hohenwaldgreen1 sentence2024Curry v. City of Hohenwald, 223 S.W.3d 289, 291 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). | 1 | 1 |
Stein v. Davidson Hotel Co.green1 sentence2024STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review “from a trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss is de novo, with no presumption of correctness as to the trial court’s legal conclusions, and all allegations of fact in the complaint below are taken as true.” Brown v. Ogle, 46 S.W.3d 721, 726 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (citing Stein v. Davidson Hotel Co., 945 S.W.2d 714, 716 (Tenn. 1997). | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Town of Colliervillegreen1 sentence2023Moore v. Town of Collierville, 124 S.W.3d 93, 97 (Tenn. 2004) (citing Tucker v. Foamex, LP, 31 S.W.3d 241, 242 (Tenn. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
Tucker v. Foamex, L.P.green1 sentence2023Moore v. Town of Collierville, 124 S.W.3d 93, 97 (Tenn. 2004) (citing Tucker v. Foamex, LP, 31 S.W.3d 241, 242 (Tenn. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
Chaille v. Warrengreen1 sentence2022State v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 18 S.W.3d 186, 191 (Tenn. 2000) (citing Chaille v. Warren, 635 S.W.2d 700, 703 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.green1 sentence2022State v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 18 S.W.3d 186, 191 (Tenn. 2000) (citing Chaille v. Warren, 635 S.W.2d 700, 703 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982)). | 1 | 1 |
McCallen v. City of Memphisgreen1 sentence2021McCallen v. City of Memphis, 786 S.W.2d 633, 639 (Tenn. 1990). | 1 | 1 |
Joshlin Renee Woodruff by and through Dorothy Cockrell v. Armie Walker, M.D.green1 sentence2021“We review a trial court’s resolution of a motion to dismiss de novo with no presumption of correctness.” Woodruff by and through Cockrell v. Walker, 542 S.W.3d 486, 493 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017). | 1 | 1 |
Bobby J. Spears v. Wendy Weatherallgreen1 sentence2020Spears v. Weatherall, 385 S.W.3d 547, 549 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). | 1 | 1 |
Beaty v. McGrawgreen1 sentence2019Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Starkey, 244 S.W.3d 344, 352 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (quoting Beaty v. McGraw, 15 S.W.3d 819, 829 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998)). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Louisianagreen1 sentence2019STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard for appellate review of a claim challenging the sufficiency of the State’s evidence is “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (citing Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356, 362 (1972)); see Tenn. R. | 1 | 1 |
Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division v. Starkeygreen1 sentence2019Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Starkey, 244 S.W.3d 344, 352 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (quoting Beaty v. McGraw, 15 S.W.3d 819, 829 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998)). | 1 | 1 |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Lee Davisgreen1 sentence2019App. P. 13(e); State v. Davis, 354 S.W.3d 718, 729 (Tenn. 2011). | 1 | 1 |
Curtis Myers v. Amisub (SFH), Inc., d/b/a St. Francis Hospitalgreen1 sentence2019See Myers v. AMISUB(SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300, 307 (Tenn. 2012) (citing Graham v. Caples, 325 S.W.3d 578, 581 (Tenn. 2010)). | 1 | 1 |
Graham v. Caplesgreen1 sentence2019See Myers v. AMISUB(SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300, 307 (Tenn. 2012) (citing Graham v. Caples, 325 S.W.3d 578, 581 (Tenn. 2010)). | 1 | 1 |
Staples v. CBL & Associates, Inc.green1 sentence2019As this inquiry involves “purely a question of law,” Staples v. CBL & Assocs., Inc., 15 S.W.3d 83, 88 (Tenn. 2000), our standard of review is de novo, and we afford no presumption of correctness to the probate court’s determination. | 1 | 1 |
Owens v. Stategreen1 sentence2018It is well settled that, in interpreting statutes, courts must “ascertain and give effect to the legislative 3 intent without restricting or expanding a statute’s coverage beyond its intended scope.” Owens v. State, 908 S.W.2d 923, 926 (Tenn. 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Kinard v. Kinardgreen1 sentence2016Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220, 235 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998); see also Burlew [v. Burlew], 40 S.W.3d [465] at 470 [(Tenn. 2001)]; Robertson v. Robertson, 76 S.W.3d 337 , 340–41 (Tenn. 2002). | 1 | 1 |
| Blackburn v. Blackburngreen | 1 | 1 |
Union Carbide Corp. v. Huddlestongreen1 sentence2013Blackburn v. Blackburn, 270 S.W.3d 42, 47 (Tenn. 2008); Union Carbide Corp. v. Huddleston, 854 S.W.2d 87, 91 (Tenn. 1993). | 1 | 1 |
| Northland Insurance Co. v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Thompson v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Divisiongreen | 1 | 1 |
| West v. Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| DePriest v. Puettgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Terminix International Co. v. Tennessee Department of Laborgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Reidgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Smithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hass v. Knightongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Beare Co. v. Tennessee Department of Revenuegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Robertson v. Robertson
green
1 sentence2016Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220, 235 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998); see also Burlew [v. Burlew], 40 S.W.3d [465] at 470 [(Tenn. 2001)]; Robertson v. Robertson, 76 S.W.3d 337 , 340–41 (Tenn. 2002). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.