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 3 courts 1926–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Turner v. Jordangreen1 sentence2014Thus, except for several well-defined circumstances, the doctrine of joint and 2 Turner v. Jordan, 957 S.W.2d 815, 821 (Tenn. 1997). -4- several liability became obsolete. | 1 | 1 |
Power Mosfet Technologies v. Siemens AGgreen2 sentences2002Eisenberg v. Gagnon, 766 F.2d 770, 787-88 (3d Cir.1985) (finding that communications in an effort to establish a joint defense are privileged); Power Mosfet Techs. v. Siemens A.G., 206 F.R.D. at 425 ; Katz v. AT & T Corp., 191 F.R.D. at 437 ; Sig Swiss Indus. 2002Power Mosfet Techs. v. Siemens AG., 206 F.R.D. 422, 425 (E.D.Tex.2000). | 1 | 1 |
Eisenberg v. Gagnongreen1 sentence2002Eisenberg v. Gagnon, 766 F.2d 770, 787-88 (3d Cir.1985) (finding that communications in an effort to establish a joint defense are privileged); Power Mosfet Techs. v. Siemens A.G., 206 F.R.D. at 425 ; Katz v. AT & T Corp., 191 F.R.D. at 437 ; Sig Swiss Indus. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Boyd v. Comdata Network, Inc.
green
1 sentence2021In short, the “common interest doctrine” was developed to “widen[] the circle of persons to whom clients may disclose privileged communications,” but that circle is limited to “participants in a joint defense” who have “common legal interest[s]” in coordinating a “joint legal strategy.” Boyd, 88 S.W.3d at 214 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
McIntyre v. Balentine
green
1 sentence2015Id. at 591 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Banks v. Elks Club Pride of Tennessee 1102
green
1 sentence2014Banks v. Elks Club Pride of Tenn. 1102, 301 S.W.3d at 219 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Katz v. AT & T Corp.
green
1 sentence2002Eisenberg v. Gagnon, 766 F.2d 770, 787-88 (3d Cir.1985) (finding that communications in an effort to establish a joint defense are privileged); Power Mosfet Techs. v. Siemens A.G., 206 F.R.D. at 425 ; Katz v. AT & T Corp., 191 F.R.D. at 437 ; Sig Swiss Indus. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Waller v. Financial Corporation of America
green
1 sentence2002Waller v. Financial Corp. of Am., 828 F.2d 579 , 584 (9th Cir.1987) (warning against the disclosure of a joint defense agreement); A.I. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Teas v. Luff-Bowen Co.
neutral
1 sentence1954It is expressed in Teas v. Luff-Bowen Co., 147 Tenn. 651, 655 , 251 S. W. 44 , 46, as follows: “ ‘To authorize a joinder of causes of action in tort, it is necessary that they each aff ect all the plaintiffs; hence a joint claim cannot be united with a single one, nor when the same tort affects the several rights of different persons can their cause of action be joined.’ ” As to the exact tort with which this action is concerned, the text of Dean Gilreath’s Edition of Caruthers’ History of A Lawsuit, page 52, is as follows: “But, if the tort be an injury to character or person, as the injury a | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Wilson v. McConnachie
green
2 sentences1926In reference to the cases in other jurisdictions: It is conceded in the opinion of the court of civil appeals that in the case of In re Wilson, 117 Cal. 262 , 49 P. 172, 711 , it was proper to submit the will and a codicil to the same jury; and furthermore that it appeared that the joint hearing was more or less by consent. 1926In reference to the cases in other jurisdictions: It is conceded in the opinion of the court of civil appeals that in the case of In re Wilson, 117 Cal. 262 , 49 P. 172, 711 , it was proper to submit the will and a codicil to the same jury; and furthermore that it appeared that the joint hearing was more or less by consent. | 1 | 1926–1926 |
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.