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 3 courts 1952–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Greenwood v. Rossgreen2 sentences1998Goss, at 824; Greenwood v. Ross, 778 F.2d 448, 452 (8th Cir. 1985); Blanchard v. Terry & Wright, Inc., supra. at 469. 1995Greenwood v. Ross, 778 F.2d 448, 452 (8th Cir.1985); Blanchard v. Terry & Wright, Inc., supra, at 469; 5 C. | 2 | 3 |
Hugh D. Blanchard and Cullen Jenkins, D/B/A Blanchard & Jenkins Construction Company v. Terry & Wright, Inc. And Federal Insurance Companygreen2 sentences1995Greenwood v. Ross, 778 F.2d 448, 452 (8th Cir.1985); Blanchard v. Terry & Wright, Inc., supra, at 469; 5 C. 1988Greenwood v. Ross, 778 F.2d 448 , 452 (8th Cir.1985); Blanchard v. Terry & Wright, Inc., supra, at 469; 5 C. | 2 | 2 |
Goss v. Hutchinsgreen2 sentences2025See Goss v. Hutchins, 751 S.W.2d 821, 824 (Tenn. 1988) (“The caption requirement of Rule 10 is merely for identification purposes, and does not control who is a party in the action. . . . 2002“The caption requirement of Rule 10 is merely for identification purposes, and does not control who is a party in the action.” Goss, 751 S.W.2d at 824 . | 1 | 2 |
Howard v. Stategreen1 sentence2017A caption clause challenge to a codified statute would not necessarily result in a conclusion that the statute is void because “the codification of the statute cure[s] any defect in the caption.” Farmer, 675 S.W.2d at 214 (citing Howard v. State, 569 S.W.2d 861, 863 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Farmer
green
2 sentences2017A caption clause challenge to a codified statute would not necessarily result in a conclusion that the statute is void because “the codification of the statute cure[s] any defect in the caption.” Farmer, 675 S.W.2d at 214 (citing Howard v. State, 569 S.W.2d 861, 863 (Tenn. Crim. 2017Farmer, 675 S.W.2d at 214 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Haynes v. Sanford
neutral
2 sentences1952Haynes v. Sanford, 185 Tenn. 576 , 206 S. W. (2d) 796 . 1952Haynes v. Sanford, 185 Tenn. 576 , 206 S. W. (2d) 796 . | 1 | 1952–1952 |
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.