6 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Burdick v. Takushigreen2 sentences2013Election Bd., 553 U.S. at 190 , 128 S.Ct. 1610 (quoting Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 , 112 S.Ct. 2059 , 119 L.Ed.2d 245 (1992)). 12 Sensing the futility of a challenge to Tenn.Code Ann. § 2-7-112 based on the United States Constitution, the plaintiffs in this case limited their claim to their right to vote under the Constitution of Tennessee. 2013Election Bd., 553 U.S. at 190 , 128 S.Ct. 1610 (quoting Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 , 112 S.Ct. 2059 , 119 L.Ed.2d 245 (1992)). 12 Sensing the futility of a challenge to Tenn.Code Ann. § 2-7-112 based on the United States Constitution, the plaintiffs in this case limited their claim to their right to vote under the Constitution of Tennessee. | 1 | 2 |
Silver v. Allardgreen1 sentence2003Even assuming that the significant relationship test applies, however, the application of Tennessee’s futility exception to the demand requirement is not mandated. “[T]he demand requirement delineates the respective powers of the shareholder and the directors.” Silver v. Allard, 16 F.Supp.2d 966, 968-69 (N.D.Ill.1998). | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Jones v. City of Nashvillegreen2 sentences1997Jones v. City of Nashville, 198 Tenn. 280, 284 , 279 S.W.2d 267, 268 (1955); Turner v. Regional Mental Health Ctr. of Oak Ridge, Inc., C.A. 1997Jones v. City of Nashville, 198 Tenn. 280, 284 , 279 S.W.2d 267, 268 (1955); Turner v. Regional Mental Health Ctr. of Oak Ridge, Inc., C.A. | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Featherstonegreen1 sentence1995See, e.g., Davis v. Featherstone, 97 F.3d 734, 737 (4th Cir. 199 6); Lindemann v. Mobil Oil Corp., 79 F.3d 647 , 650 (7th Cir. 1996); Makar v. H ea lth Ca re Co rp . o f M id-Atlantic (Carefirst), 872 F.2d 80 (4 th Cir. 1989 ); Fizer v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 586 F.2d 182 (10th Cir. 1978). | 1 | 1 |
State Department of Human Services v. Defriecegreen1 sentence1995Cir. 1994) (“The futility exception is . . . quite restricted and has (continued...) -5- trial level, however, and “[i]t is well-settled that issues not raised at trial may not be raised for the first time on appeal.” State Dep't of Human Servs. v. Defriece, 937 S.W.2d 954, 960 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board
green
2 sentences2013Election Bd., 553 U.S. at 190 , 128 S.Ct. 1610 (quoting Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 , 112 S.Ct. 2059 , 119 L.Ed.2d 245 (1992)). 12 Sensing the futility of a challenge to Tenn.Code Ann. § 2-7-112 based on the United States Constitution, the plaintiffs in this case limited their claim to their right to vote under the Constitution of Tennessee. 2013Election Bd., 553 U.S. at 190 , 128 S.Ct. 1610 (quoting Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 , 112 S.Ct. 2059 , 119 L.Ed.2d 245 (1992)). 12 Sensing the futility of a challenge to Tenn.Code Ann. § 2-7-112 based on the United States Constitution, the plaintiffs in this case limited their claim to their right to vote under the Constitution of Tennessee. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Communications Workers of America Lyle Wingate v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company American Telephone and Telegraph Pension Plan
green
1 sentence2003D.C. 170, 40 F.3d 426 (D.C.Cir. 1994) ("The futility exception is ... quite restricted and has been applied only when resort to administrative remedies is clearly useless.”) (quotations and citations omitted). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences2003Kamen, 500 U.S. at 108-09 , 111 S.Ct. 1711 . 2003Kamen, 500 U.S. at 108-09 , 111 S.Ct. 1711 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Burns v. City of Nashville
green
1 sentence2003See Lewis, 838 S.W.2d at 218 (noting that the subject corporation was organized in Tennessee); Burns v. Nashville, 142 Tenn. 541 , 221 S.W. 828 (Tenn.1920) (suit brought against city of Nashville, Tennessee). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Pens. Plan Guide P 23918v Diane L. Lindemann v. Mobil Oil Corporation
green
1 sentence1995See, e.g., Davis v. Featherstone, 97 F.3d 734, 737 (4th Cir. 199 6); Lindemann v. Mobil Oil Corp., 79 F.3d 647 , 650 (7th Cir. 1996); Makar v. H ea lth Ca re Co rp . o f M id-Atlantic (Carefirst), 872 F.2d 80 (4 th Cir. 1989 ); Fizer v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 586 F.2d 182 (10th Cir. 1978). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Dorothy T. Makar Anthony L. Makar, Her Husband v. Health Care Corporation of the Mid-Atlantic (Carefirst) Provident Life & Accident Insurance Company
green
1 sentence1995See, e.g., Davis v. Featherstone, 97 F.3d 734, 737 (4th Cir. 199 6); Lindemann v. Mobil Oil Corp., 79 F.3d 647 , 650 (7th Cir. 1996); Makar v. H ea lth Ca re Co rp . o f M id-Atlantic (Carefirst), 872 F.2d 80 (4 th Cir. 1989 ); Fizer v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 586 F.2d 182 (10th Cir. 1978). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Fizer v. Safeway Stores
green
1 sentence1995See, e.g., Davis v. Featherstone, 97 F.3d 734, 737 (4th Cir. 199 6); Lindemann v. Mobil Oil Corp., 79 F.3d 647 , 650 (7th Cir. 1996); Makar v. H ea lth Ca re Co rp . o f M id-Atlantic (Carefirst), 872 F.2d 80 (4 th Cir. 1989 ); Fizer v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 586 F.2d 182 (10th Cir. 1978). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.