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 1 courts 1996–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Limbaugh v. Coffee Medical Centergreen2 sentences2018Ctr., 59 S.W.3d 73 , -8- 84 (Tenn. 2001) (“[W]e hold that section 29-20-205 of the GTLA removes immunity for injuries proximately caused by the negligent act or omission of a governmental employee except when the injury arises out of only those specified torts enumerated in subsection (2).”); see also Hughes v. Metro. 2002The Court held that “Section 29-20-205 of the GTLA removes immunity for injuries caused by the negligent act or omission of a governmental employee except when the injury arises out of only those specified torts enumerated in subsection (2).” Id. | 2 | 4 |
Lindgren v. City of Johnson Citygreen1 sentence2022“Actual notice is ‘knowledge of facts and circumstances sufficiently pertinent in character to enable reasonably cautious and prudent persons to investigate and ascertain as to the ultimate facts.’” Lindgren v. City of Johnson City, 88 S.W.3d 581, 584 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (quoting Kirby v. Macon Co., 892 S.W.2d 403, 409 (Tenn. 1994)). | 1 | 1 |
Kirby v. MacOn Countygreen1 sentence2022“Actual notice is ‘knowledge of facts and circumstances sufficiently pertinent in character to enable reasonably cautious and prudent persons to investigate and ascertain as to the ultimate facts.’” Lindgren v. City of Johnson City, 88 S.W.3d 581, 584 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (quoting Kirby v. Macon Co., 892 S.W.2d 403, 409 (Tenn. 1994)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hughes v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County
green
1 sentence2018Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cty., 340 S.W.3d 352 , 368–69 (Tenn. 2011) (holding that in order to hold a governmental entity liable for the intentional tort of its employee not specifically enumerated in section 29-20-205, the plaintiff must include a “showing of negligence by the governmental entity in supervision of one of its employees acting within the scope of employment”). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Autry Ex Rel. Hood v. Hooker
green
1 sentence2012Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-205 (2012); Autry, 304 S.W.3d at 362 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.