6 Tennessee opinions name it 1 courts 2000–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Logan v. Winsteadgreen2 sentences2002Id. at *1. -2- Relying upon a recent decision of the Tennessee Supreme Court, Logan v. Winstead, 23 S.W.3d 297 (Tenn. 2000), this Court held that, because the trial court failed to rule on Mr. Burton’s motion for abeyance, the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment was reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court to consider, pursuant to the guidelines set forth in Logan v. Winstead, whether Mr. Burton’s request for an abeyance should be granted. 2002Id. at *1. -2- Relying upon a recent decision of the Tennessee Supreme Court, Logan v. Winstead, 23 S.W.3d 297 (Tenn. 2000), this Court held that, because the trial court failed to rule on Mr. Burton’s motion for abeyance, the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment was reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court to consider, pursuant to the guidelines set forth in Logan v. Winstead, whether Mr. Burton’s request for an abeyance should be granted. | 2 | 3 |
In Re Estate of Hendersongreen1 sentence2020“A final judgment is one that resolves all the issues in the case, ‘leaving nothing else for the trial court to do.’” In Re Estate of Henderson, 121 S.W.3d 643, 645 (Tenn. 2003) (quoting State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Bell v. Toddgreen1 sentence2019Id. at *5 (citing Bell v. Todd, 206 S.W.3d 86, 91 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005)) (internal citations and footnotes omitted); see also Richards v. Richards, No. E2014-02123-COA- R3-CV, 2015 WL 4575536 , at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 30, 2015) (concluding that the trial court committed prejudicial error by dismissing incarcerated husband’s complaint for divorce without first considering husband’s motion to appear via video communication technology); Chastain v. Chastain, No. M2003-02016-COA-R3-CV, 2004 WL 725277 , at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2004) (vacating the portions of the trial court’s final decree | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Whitaker v. Whirlpool Corp.
green
1 sentence2014Although an appellate court has “no duty to exhaustively search this record to verify unsupported allegations in a brief,” Whitaker, 32 S.W.3d at 227-28 , we have reviewed the record and find the trial court was extremely liberal in the construction of Defendant’s pleadings and properly addressed Defendant’s motions, evidenced by its orders entered on (1) March 7, 2012, denying Defendant’s motion for transportation to the hearing on Plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion, and, instead, allowing Defendant to participate by teleconference; (2) May 1, 2012, denying Defendant’s motion for appointment | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.