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.
6 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Shelter Insurance Companies v. Spencegreen2 sentences2024One such case, Shelter Insurance Companies v. Spence, held that the cooperation clause of an insurance policy entitled the insurer to take sworn statements from each insured privately and out of each other’s presence. 656 S.W.2d 36, 38 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983). 2009See Shelter, 656 S.W.2d at 38 (agreeing with the statement in Dyno-Bite, Inc. v. The Travelers Companies, 80 A.D.2d 471 , 439 N.Y.S.2d 558, 560 (1981) that “the right to examine under the cooperation clause of the insurance policy, however, is much broader than the right of discovery under the CPLR [Civil Practice Law and Rules]”). | 2 | 2 |
Dyno-Bite, Inc. v. Travelers Co.green2 sentences2009See Shelter, 656 S.W.2d at 38 (agreeing with the statement in Dyno-Bite, Inc. v. The Travelers Companies, 80 A.D.2d 471 , 439 N.Y.S.2d 558, 560 (1981) that “the right to examine under the cooperation clause of the insurance policy, however, is much broader than the right of discovery under the CPLR [Civil Practice Law and Rules]”). 2009See Shelter, 656 S.W.2d at 38 (agreeing with the statement in Dyno-Bite, Inc. v. The Travelers Companies, 80 A.D.2d 471 , 439 N.Y.S.2d 558, 560 (1981) that “the right to examine under the cooperation clause of the insurance policy, however, is much broader than the right of discovery under the CPLR [Civil Practice Law and Rules]”). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert Bernard
green
2 sentences2020The Court observed that scientific testing for BAC became the norm after states passed laws making it illegal to drive with a BAC in excess of a statutory limit and that “[b]ecause the cooperation of the test subject is necessary when a breath test is administered and highly preferable when a blood sample is taken, the enactment of laws defining intoxication based on BAC made it necessary for [s]tates to find a way of securing such cooperation.” Id. at 2168-69 . 2020To this end, all 50 states eventually passed implied consent laws that “provided that cooperation with BAC testing was a condition of the privilege of driving on state roads and that the privilege would be rescinded if a suspected drunk driver refused to honor that condition.” Id. at 2169 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Howington
green
1 sentence2013However, a cooperation- immunity agreement “is different from the average commercial contract as it involves a criminal prosecution where due process rights must be fiercely protected.” Howington, 907 S.W.2d at 410 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Southern Fire and Casualty Company v. Cooper
green
2 sentences1968This general statement is in accord with the decision of our Supreme Court in the cases of Hardware Mutual Casualty Company v. Higgason, 175 Tenn. 357 , 134 S.W.2d 169 , and Southern Fire and Casualty Company v. Cooper, 200 Tenn. 283 , 292 S.W.2d 177 , and with the holding of this court in Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Miller, decided on September 12, 1962, and reported in 26 CCH Automobile Cases 2d 1494. 1968This general statement is in accord with the decision of our Supreme Court in the cases of Hardware Mutual Casualty Company v. Higgason, 175 Tenn. 357 , 134 S.W.2d 169 , and Southern Fire and Casualty Company v. Cooper, 200 Tenn. 283 , 292 S.W.2d 177 , and with the holding of this court in Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Miller, decided on September 12, 1962, and reported in 26 CCH Automobile Cases 2d 1494. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Hardware Mut. Casualty Co. v. Higgason
green
2 sentences1968This general statement is in accord with the decision of our Supreme Court in the cases of Hardware Mutual Casualty Company v. Higgason, 175 Tenn. 357 , 134 S.W.2d 169 , and Southern Fire and Casualty Company v. Cooper, 200 Tenn. 283 , 292 S.W.2d 177 , and with the holding of this court in Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Miller, decided on September 12, 1962, and reported in 26 CCH Automobile Cases 2d 1494. 1968This general statement is in accord with the decision of our Supreme Court in the cases of Hardware Mutual Casualty Company v. Higgason, 175 Tenn. 357 , 134 S.W.2d 169 , and Southern Fire and Casualty Company v. Cooper, 200 Tenn. 283 , 292 S.W.2d 177 , and with the holding of this court in Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Miller, decided on September 12, 1962, and reported in 26 CCH Automobile Cases 2d 1494. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.