Account information only. It is never shown to the AI client you connect, and it is kept apart from your research — which is not logged at all.
Your token is the key to the MCP: claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode take it in the URL; Claude Code and the rest take it as a bearer header. It is also in your welcome email. Install instructions.
No token yet. One token per address, shown once and mailed to you with setup steps — claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode need it in the URL; Claude Code and the rest take it as a bearer header. Install instructions.
Your MCP token. Anyone holding it can search on your subscription, so keep it off shared screens.
Header form (recommended) — this endpoint, with
Authorization: Bearer <your token>.
URL form — for claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode, which cannot set a header. The whole credential is in the address:
The dedicated fast index: searches run on a machine nobody else queues for, with full-text highlighted excerpts. Higher MCP limits, and semantic search when it lands.
See ProThank you.
Manage billingDelete my account: email [email protected] and it is done by hand, usually the same day. (Self-serve deletion is not built yet.)
Free, and it takes a minute. Registered visitors skip the Cloudflare checks, and your MCP token for Claude or ChatGPT is issued at the end of this.
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.
Here is your MCP token. It is shown once — it is also in the welcome email we just sent you, with setup steps.
Header form (recommended) — this endpoint, with
Authorization: Bearer <your token>.
URL form — for claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode, which cannot set a header. The whole credential is in the address:
That address already had a token, so we did not issue a second one — two live credentials for one mailbox is how people end up with a working laptop and a broken office machine. Your connector URL is in your inbox under “Your Syfert legal research connector URL”; if it is gone, call 904-383-7448.
6 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1928–2005 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 |
|---|---|---|
Campbell v. Gruttemeyergreen2 sentences2001Campbell v. Gruttemeyer, 222 Tenn. 133, 137 , 432 S.W.2d 894, 895 (1968); Turner v. Carter, 169 Tenn. 553, 555 , 89 S.W.2d 751, 751 (1936). 2001Campbell v. Gruttemeyer, 222 Tenn. 133, 137 , 432 S.W.2d 894, 895 (1968); Turner v. Carter, 169 Tenn. 553, 555 , 89 S.W.2d 751, 751 (1936). | 1 | 1 |
Turner v. Cartergreen2 sentences2001Campbell v. Gruttemeyer, 222 Tenn. 133, 137 , 432 S.W.2d 894, 895 (1968); Turner v. Carter, 169 Tenn. 553, 555 , 89 S.W.2d 751, 751 (1936). 2001Campbell v. Gruttemeyer, 222 Tenn. 133, 137 , 432 S.W.2d 894, 895 (1968); Turner v. Carter, 169 Tenn. 553, 555 , 89 S.W.2d 751, 751 (1936). | 1 | 1 |
Cates v. Catesgreen2 sentences1994See, e.g., Cates v. Cates, 156 Ill.2d 76 , 189 Ill.Dec. 14 , 619 N.E.2d 715 (1993) (parental immunity limited to conduct inherent to parent-child relationship); Glaskox By and Through Denton v. Glaskox, 614 So.2d 906 (Miss.1992); (abrogated doctrine as it applies to negligent operation- of motor vehicle); Hartman By and Through Hartman v. Hartman, 821 S.W.2d 852 (Mo.1991) (abrogated doctrine in favor of reasonable parent standard); Kirchner v. Crystal, 15 Ohio St.3d 326 , 474 N.E.2d 275 (1984) (parental immunity abolished entirely); Jilani By and Through Jilani v. Jilani, 767 S.W.2d 671 (Tex.1 1994See, e.g., Cates v. Cates, 156 Ill.2d 76 , 189 Ill.Dec. 14 , 619 N.E.2d 715 (1993) (parental immunity limited to conduct inherent to parent-child relationship); Glaskox By and Through Denton v. Glaskox, 614 So.2d 906 (Miss.1992); (abrogated doctrine as it applies to negligent operation- of motor vehicle); Hartman By and Through Hartman v. Hartman, 821 S.W.2d 852 (Mo.1991) (abrogated doctrine in favor of reasonable parent standard); Kirchner v. Crystal, 15 Ohio St.3d 326 , 474 N.E.2d 275 (1984) (parental immunity abolished entirely); Jilani By and Through Jilani v. Jilani, 767 S.W.2d 671 (Tex.1 | 1 | 1 |
Cook Ex Rel. Uithoven v. Spinnaker's of Rivergate, Inc.green1 sentence1994See Cook v. Spinnaker’s of Rivergate, 846 S.W.2d 810, 812 (Tenn.1993). | 1 | 1 |
| Hogan v. Hogangreen | 1 | 1 |
Hill v. Giordanogreen2 sentences1985Ala., Owens v. Auto Mutual Indemnity Co., 235 Ala. 9 , 177 So. 133 (1937); see also Hill v. Giordano, 447 So.2d 164 (Ala.1984); Ark., Rambo v. Rambo, 195 Ark. 832 , 114 S.W.2d 468 (1938); but see Attwood v. Estate of Attwood, 276 Ark. 230 , 633 S.W.2d 366 (1982) (immunity does not preclude suit for willful and wanton conduct); Colo., Horton v. Reaves, 186 Colo. 149 , 526 P.2d 304 (1974); Ga., Coleman v. Coleman, 157 Ga.App. 533 , 278 S.E.2d 114 (1981); Ill., Wilkosz v. Wilkosz, 124 Ill.App.3d 904 , 80 Ill.Dec. 249 , 464 N.E.2d 1232 (1984) (transporting child from school is not within the “beyo 1985Ala., Owens v. Auto Mutual Indemnity Co., 235 Ala. 9 , 177 So. 133 (1937); see also Hill v. Giordano, 447 So.2d 164 (Ala.1984); Ark., Rambo v. Rambo, 195 Ark. 832 , 114 S.W.2d 468 (1938); but see Attwood v. Estate of Attwood, 276 Ark. 230 , 633 S.W.2d 366 (1982) (immunity does not preclude suit for willful and wanton conduct); Colo., Horton v. Reaves, 186 Colo. 149 , 526 P.2d 304 (1974); Ga., Coleman v. Coleman, 157 Ga.App. 533 , 278 S.E.2d 114 (1981); Ill., Wilkosz v. Wilkosz, 124 Ill.App.3d 904 , 80 Ill.Dec. 249 , 464 N.E.2d 1232 (1984) (transporting child from school is not within the “beyo | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Barranco v. Jacksongreen2 sentences1994This Court granted permission to appeal in order to re-examine the parental immunity doctrine, first adopted in this state in McKelvey v. McKelvey, 111 Tenn. 388 , 77 S.W. 664 (1903), and most recently reaffirmed in Barranco v. Jackson, 690 S.W.2d 221 (Tenn.1985), a case in which the dissent advocated that parental immunity be abolished in “automobile tort” cases. 1994The majority in Barranco declined to discuss the substantive issue of whether the parental immunity doctrine should be modified, observing only that the doctrine “has continuing vitality and should be adhered to unless modified or changed by action of the General Assembly.” Id. at 222 . | 1 | 2 |
Attwood v. Estate of Attwoodgreen2 sentences1985Ala., Owens v. Auto Mutual Indemnity Co., 235 Ala. 9 , 177 So. 133 (1937); see also Hill v. Giordano, 447 So.2d 164 (Ala.1984); Ark., Rambo v. Rambo, 195 Ark. 832 , 114 S.W.2d 468 (1938); but see Attwood v. Estate of Attwood, 276 Ark. 230 , 633 S.W.2d 366 (1982) (immunity does not preclude suit for willful and wanton conduct); Colo., Horton v. Reaves, 186 Colo. 149 , 526 P.2d 304 (1974); Ga., Coleman v. Coleman, 157 Ga.App. 533 , 278 S.E.2d 114 (1981); Ill., Wilkosz v. Wilkosz, 124 Ill.App.3d 904 , 80 Ill.Dec. 249 , 464 N.E.2d 1232 (1984) (transporting child from school is not within the “beyo 1985Ala., Owens v. Auto Mutual Indemnity Co., 235 Ala. 9 , 177 So. 133 (1937); see also Hill v. Giordano, 447 So.2d 164 (Ala.1984); Ark., Rambo v. Rambo, 195 Ark. 832 , 114 S.W.2d 468 (1938); but see Attwood v. Estate of Attwood, 276 Ark. 230 , 633 S.W.2d 366 (1982) (immunity does not preclude suit for willful and wanton conduct); Colo., Horton v. Reaves, 186 Colo. 149 , 526 P.2d 304 (1974); Ga., Coleman v. Coleman, 157 Ga.App. 533 , 278 S.E.2d 114 (1981); Ill., Wilkosz v. Wilkosz, 124 Ill.App.3d 904 , 80 Ill.Dec. 249 , 464 N.E.2d 1232 (1984) (transporting child from school is not within the “beyo | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Broadwell Ex Rel. Broadwell v. Holmes
green
2 sentences2005This Court limited the doctrine of parental immunity in Tennessee “to conduct that constitutes the exercise of parental authority, the performance of parental supervision, and the provision of parental care and custody.” Id. at 476-77 . 2001Less than 10 years later a unanimous Court, in Broadwell by Broadwell v. Holmes, 871 S.W.2d 471 (Tenn. 1994), modified the rule as follows (at page 476): Parental immunity in Tennessee is limited to conduct that constitutes the exercise of parental authority, the performance of parental supervision, and the provision of parental care and custody. | 2 | 2001–2005 |
McKelvey v. McKelvey
red
2 sentences1994This Court granted permission to appeal in order to re-examine the parental immunity doctrine, first adopted in this state in McKelvey v. McKelvey, 111 Tenn. 388 , 77 S.W. 664 (1903), and most recently reaffirmed in Barranco v. Jackson, 690 S.W.2d 221 (Tenn.1985), a case in which the dissent advocated that parental immunity be abolished in “automobile tort” cases. 1985The majority opinion in adhering to McKelvey v. McKelvey, 111 Tenn. 388 , 77 S.W. 664 (1903), found it unnecessary to discuss the facts of this ease. | 2 | 1985–1994 |
Glaskox by and Through Denton v. Glaskox
green
1 sentence1994See, e.g., Cates v. Cates, 156 Ill.2d 76 , 189 Ill.Dec. 14 , 619 N.E.2d 715 (1993) (parental immunity limited to conduct inherent to parent-child relationship); Glaskox By and Through Denton v. Glaskox, 614 So.2d 906 (Miss.1992); (abrogated doctrine as it applies to negligent operation- of motor vehicle); Hartman By and Through Hartman v. Hartman, 821 S.W.2d 852 (Mo.1991) (abrogated doctrine in favor of reasonable parent standard); Kirchner v. Crystal, 15 Ohio St.3d 326 , 474 N.E.2d 275 (1984) (parental immunity abolished entirely); Jilani By and Through Jilani v. Jilani, 767 S.W.2d 671 (Tex.1 | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Hartman Ex Rel. Hartman v. Hartman
green
1 sentence1994See, e.g., Cates v. Cates, 156 Ill.2d 76 , 189 Ill.Dec. 14 , 619 N.E.2d 715 (1993) (parental immunity limited to conduct inherent to parent-child relationship); Glaskox By and Through Denton v. Glaskox, 614 So.2d 906 (Miss.1992); (abrogated doctrine as it applies to negligent operation- of motor vehicle); Hartman By and Through Hartman v. Hartman, 821 S.W.2d 852 (Mo.1991) (abrogated doctrine in favor of reasonable parent standard); Kirchner v. Crystal, 15 Ohio St.3d 326 , 474 N.E.2d 275 (1984) (parental immunity abolished entirely); Jilani By and Through Jilani v. Jilani, 767 S.W.2d 671 (Tex.1 | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Jilani by and Through Jilani v. Jilani
green
1 sentence1994See, e.g., Cates v. Cates, 156 Ill.2d 76 , 189 Ill.Dec. 14 , 619 N.E.2d 715 (1993) (parental immunity limited to conduct inherent to parent-child relationship); Glaskox By and Through Denton v. Glaskox, 614 So.2d 906 (Miss.1992); (abrogated doctrine as it applies to negligent operation- of motor vehicle); Hartman By and Through Hartman v. Hartman, 821 S.W.2d 852 (Mo.1991) (abrogated doctrine in favor of reasonable parent standard); Kirchner v. Crystal, 15 Ohio St.3d 326 , 474 N.E.2d 275 (1984) (parental immunity abolished entirely); Jilani By and Through Jilani v. Jilani, 767 S.W.2d 671 (Tex.1 | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Kirchner v. Crystal
green
2 sentences1994See, e.g., Cates v. Cates, 156 Ill.2d 76 , 189 Ill.Dec. 14 , 619 N.E.2d 715 (1993) (parental immunity limited to conduct inherent to parent-child relationship); Glaskox By and Through Denton v. Glaskox, 614 So.2d 906 (Miss.1992); (abrogated doctrine as it applies to negligent operation- of motor vehicle); Hartman By and Through Hartman v. Hartman, 821 S.W.2d 852 (Mo.1991) (abrogated doctrine in favor of reasonable parent standard); Kirchner v. Crystal, 15 Ohio St.3d 326 , 474 N.E.2d 275 (1984) (parental immunity abolished entirely); Jilani By and Through Jilani v. Jilani, 767 S.W.2d 671 (Tex.1 1994See, e.g., Cates v. Cates, 156 Ill.2d 76 , 189 Ill.Dec. 14 , 619 N.E.2d 715 (1993) (parental immunity limited to conduct inherent to parent-child relationship); Glaskox By and Through Denton v. Glaskox, 614 So.2d 906 (Miss.1992); (abrogated doctrine as it applies to negligent operation- of motor vehicle); Hartman By and Through Hartman v. Hartman, 821 S.W.2d 852 (Mo.1991) (abrogated doctrine in favor of reasonable parent standard); Kirchner v. Crystal, 15 Ohio St.3d 326 , 474 N.E.2d 275 (1984) (parental immunity abolished entirely); Jilani By and Through Jilani v. Jilani, 767 S.W.2d 671 (Tex.1 | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Holodook v. Spencer
green
2 sentences1994Another approach to modifying the parental immunity doctrine was articulated by the New York Court of Appeals in Holodook v. Spencer, 36 N.Y.2d 35 , 364 N.Y.S.2d 859 , 324 N.E.2d 338 (1974), in which it was alleged that the minor child’s mother had negligently supervised her child when, as a result of being left untended, the child wandered into the street where she was struck by a passing automobile. 1994Another approach to modifying the parental immunity doctrine was articulated by the New York Court of Appeals in Holodook v. Spencer, 36 N.Y.2d 35 , 364 N.Y.S.2d 859 , 324 N.E.2d 338 (1974), in which it was alleged that the minor child’s mother had negligently supervised her child when, as a result of being left untended, the child wandered into the street where she was struck by a passing automobile. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Nocktonick Ex Rel. Matson v. Nocktonick green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Schneider v. Coe
green
2 sentences1985Stat. Ann. § 52 -572c; Del., Schneider v. Coe, supra; Fla., Ard v. Ard, supra; Hawaii, Petersen v. City and County of Honolulu, supra; Ind., Buffalo v. Buffalo (non custodial parent), supra; Iowa, Turner v. Turner, supra; Kan., Nocktonick v. Nocktonick, supra; Ky., Rigdon v. Rigdon, supra; La., Bondurant v. Bondurant, (non custodial parent), supra; Maine, Black v. Solmitz, supra; Mass., Sorensen v. Sorensen, supra; Mich., Plumley v. Klein, supra; Minn., Anderson v. Stream, supra; Mont., Transamerican Ins. 1985Alaska, Hebel v. Hebel, supra; Ariz., Streenz v. Streenz, supra; Calif., Gibson v. Gibson, supra; Conn., Conn.Gen.Stat.Ann. § 52-572c; Del., Schneider v. Coe, supra; Fla., Ard v. Ard, supra; Hawaii, Petersen v. City and County of Honolulu, supra; Ind., Buffalo v. Buffalo (non custodial parent), supra; Iowa, Turner v. Turner, supra; Kan., Nocktonick v. Nocktonick, supra; Ky., Rigdon v. Rigdon, supra; La., Bondurant v. Bondurant, (non custodial parent), supra; Maine, Black v. Solmitz., supra; Mass., Sorensen v. Sorensen, supra; Mich., Plumley v. Klein, supra; Minn., Anderson v. Stream, supra; Mo | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Felderhoff v. Felderhoff
green
2 sentences1985Ala., Owens v. Auto Mutual Indemnity Co., 235 Ala. 9 , 177 So. 133 (1937); see also Hill v. Giordano, 447 So.2d 164 (Ala.1984); Ark., Rambo v. Rambo, 195 Ark. 832 , 114 S.W.2d 468 (1938); but see Attwood v. Estate of Attwood, 276 Ark. 230 , 633 S.W.2d 366 (1982) (immunity does not preclude suit for willful and wanton conduct); Colo., Horton v. Reaves, 186 Colo. 149 , 526 P.2d 304 (1974); Ga., Coleman v. Coleman, 157 Ga.App. 533 , 278 S.E.2d 114 (1981); Ill., Wilkosz v. Wilkosz, 124 Ill.App.3d 904 , 80 Ill.Dec. 249 , 464 N.E.2d 1232 (1984) (transporting child from school is not within the “beyo 1985Ala., Owens v. Auto Mutual Indemnity Co., 235 Ala. 9 , 177 So. 133 (1937); see also Hill v. Giordano, 447 So.2d 164 (Ala.1984); Ark., Rambo v. Rambo, 195 Ark. 832 , 114 S.W.2d 468 (1938); but see Attwood v. Estate of Attwood, 276 Ark. 230 , 633 S.W.2d 366 (1982) (immunity does not preclude suit for willful and wanton conduct); Colo., Horton v. Reaves, 186 Colo. 149 , 526 P.2d 304 (1974); Ga., Coleman v. Coleman, 157 Ga.App. 533 , 278 S.E.2d 114 (1981); Ill., Wilkosz v. Wilkosz, 124 Ill.App.3d 904 , 80 Ill.Dec. 249 , 464 N.E.2d 1232 (1984) (transporting child from school is not within the “beyo | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Black v. Solmitz
green
2 sentences1985Stat. Ann. § 52 -572c; Del., Schneider v. Coe, supra; Fla., Ard v. Ard, supra; Hawaii, Petersen v. City and County of Honolulu, supra; Ind., Buffalo v. Buffalo (non custodial parent), supra; Iowa, Turner v. Turner, supra; Kan., Nocktonick v. Nocktonick, supra; Ky., Rigdon v. Rigdon, supra; La., Bondurant v. Bondurant, (non custodial parent), supra; Maine, Black v. Solmitz, supra; Mass., Sorensen v. Sorensen, supra; Mich., Plumley v. Klein, supra; Minn., Anderson v. Stream, supra; Mont., Transamerican Ins. 1985Alaska, Hebel v. Hebel, supra; Ariz., Streenz v. Streenz, supra; Calif., Gibson v. Gibson, supra; Conn., Conn.Gen.Stat.Ann. § 52-572c; Del., Schneider v. Coe, supra; Fla., Ard v. Ard, supra; Hawaii, Petersen v. City and County of Honolulu, supra; Ind., Buffalo v. Buffalo (non custodial parent), supra; Iowa, Turner v. Turner, supra; Kan., Nocktonick v. Nocktonick, supra; Ky., Rigdon v. Rigdon, supra; La., Bondurant v. Bondurant, (non custodial parent), supra; Maine, Black v. Solmitz., supra; Mass., Sorensen v. Sorensen, supra; Mich., Plumley v. Klein, supra; Minn., Anderson v. Stream, supra; Mo | 1 | 1985–1985 |
McNeal v. Administrator of Estate of McNeal
green
2 sentences1985Ala., Owens v. Auto Mutual Indemnity Co., 235 Ala. 9 , 177 So. 133 (1937); see also Hill v. Giordano, 447 So.2d 164 (Ala.1984); Ark., Rambo v. Rambo, 195 Ark. 832 , 114 S.W.2d 468 (1938); but see Attwood v. Estate of Attwood, 276 Ark. 230 , 633 S.W.2d 366 (1982) (immunity does not preclude suit for willful and wanton conduct); Colo., Horton v. Reaves, 186 Colo. 149 , 526 P.2d 304 (1974); Ga., Coleman v. Coleman, 157 Ga.App. 533 , 278 S.E.2d 114 (1981); Ill., Wilkosz v. Wilkosz, 124 Ill.App.3d 904 , 80 Ill.Dec. 249 , 464 N.E.2d 1232 (1984) (transporting child from school is not within the “beyo 1985Ala., Owens v. Auto Mutual Indemnity Co., 235 Ala. 9 , 177 So. 133 (1937); see also Hill v. Giordano, 447 So.2d 164 (Ala.1984); Ark., Rambo v. Rambo, 195 Ark. 832 , 114 S.W.2d 468 (1938); but see Attwood v. Estate of Attwood, 276 Ark. 230 , 633 S.W.2d 366 (1982) (immunity does not preclude suit for willful and wanton conduct); Colo., Horton v. Reaves, 186 Colo. 149 , 526 P.2d 304 (1974); Ga., Coleman v. Coleman, 157 Ga.App. 533 , 278 S.E.2d 114 (1981); Ill., Wilkosz v. Wilkosz, 124 Ill.App.3d 904 , 80 Ill.Dec. 249 , 464 N.E.2d 1232 (1984) (transporting child from school is not within the “beyo | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Wilkosz v. Wilkosz
green
2 sentences1985Ala., Owens v. Auto Mutual Indemnity Co., 235 Ala. 9 , 177 So. 133 (1937); see also Hill v. Giordano, 447 So.2d 164 (Ala.1984); Ark., Rambo v. Rambo, 195 Ark. 832 , 114 S.W.2d 468 (1938); but see Attwood v. Estate of Attwood, 276 Ark. 230 , 633 S.W.2d 366 (1982) (immunity does not preclude suit for willful and wanton conduct); Colo., Horton v. Reaves, 186 Colo. 149 , 526 P.2d 304 (1974); Ga., Coleman v. Coleman, 157 Ga.App. 533 , 278 S.E.2d 114 (1981); Ill., Wilkosz v. Wilkosz, 124 Ill.App.3d 904 , 80 Ill.Dec. 249 , 464 N.E.2d 1232 (1984) (transporting child from school is not within the “beyo 1985Ala., Owens v. Auto Mutual Indemnity Co., 235 Ala. 9 , 177 So. 133 (1937); see also Hill v. Giordano, 447 So.2d 164 (Ala.1984); Ark., Rambo v. Rambo, 195 Ark. 832 , 114 S.W.2d 468 (1938); but see Attwood v. Estate of Attwood, 276 Ark. 230 , 633 S.W.2d 366 (1982) (immunity does not preclude suit for willful and wanton conduct); Colo., Horton v. Reaves, 186 Colo. 149 , 526 P.2d 304 (1974); Ga., Coleman v. Coleman, 157 Ga.App. 533 , 278 S.E.2d 114 (1981); Ill., Wilkosz v. Wilkosz, 124 Ill.App.3d 904 , 80 Ill.Dec. 249 , 464 N.E.2d 1232 (1984) (transporting child from school is not within the “beyo | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Coleman v. Coleman
green
2 sentences1985Ala., Owens v. Auto Mutual Indemnity Co., 235 Ala. 9 , 177 So. 133 (1937); see also Hill v. Giordano, 447 So.2d 164 (Ala.1984); Ark., Rambo v. Rambo, 195 Ark. 832 , 114 S.W.2d 468 (1938); but see Attwood v. Estate of Attwood, 276 Ark. 230 , 633 S.W.2d 366 (1982) (immunity does not preclude suit for willful and wanton conduct); Colo., Horton v. Reaves, 186 Colo. 149 , 526 P.2d 304 (1974); Ga., Coleman v. Coleman, 157 Ga.App. 533 , 278 S.E.2d 114 (1981); Ill., Wilkosz v. Wilkosz, 124 Ill.App.3d 904 , 80 Ill.Dec. 249 , 464 N.E.2d 1232 (1984) (transporting child from school is not within the “beyo 1985Ala., Owens v. Auto Mutual Indemnity Co., 235 Ala. 9 , 177 So. 133 (1937); see also Hill v. Giordano, 447 So.2d 164 (Ala.1984); Ark., Rambo v. Rambo, 195 Ark. 832 , 114 S.W.2d 468 (1938); but see Attwood v. Estate of Attwood, 276 Ark. 230 , 633 S.W.2d 366 (1982) (immunity does not preclude suit for willful and wanton conduct); Colo., Horton v. Reaves, 186 Colo. 149 , 526 P.2d 304 (1974); Ga., Coleman v. Coleman, 157 Ga.App. 533 , 278 S.E.2d 114 (1981); Ill., Wilkosz v. Wilkosz, 124 Ill.App.3d 904 , 80 Ill.Dec. 249 , 464 N.E.2d 1232 (1984) (transporting child from school is not within the “beyo | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Ard v. Ard
green
2 sentences1985Stat. Ann. § 52 -572c; Del., Schneider v. Coe, supra; Fla., Ard v. Ard, supra; Hawaii, Petersen v. City and County of Honolulu, supra; Ind., Buffalo v. Buffalo (non custodial parent), supra; Iowa, Turner v. Turner, supra; Kan., Nocktonick v. Nocktonick, supra; Ky., Rigdon v. Rigdon, supra; La., Bondurant v. Bondurant, (non custodial parent), supra; Maine, Black v. Solmitz, supra; Mass., Sorensen v. Sorensen, supra; Mich., Plumley v. Klein, supra; Minn., Anderson v. Stream, supra; Mont., Transamerican Ins. 1985Alaska, Hebel v. Hebel, supra; Ariz., Streenz v. Streenz, supra; Calif., Gibson v. Gibson, supra; Conn., Conn.Gen.Stat.Ann. § 52-572c; Del., Schneider v. Coe, supra; Fla., Ard v. Ard, supra; Hawaii, Petersen v. City and County of Honolulu, supra; Ind., Buffalo v. Buffalo (non custodial parent), supra; Iowa, Turner v. Turner, supra; Kan., Nocktonick v. Nocktonick, supra; Ky., Rigdon v. Rigdon, supra; La., Bondurant v. Bondurant, (non custodial parent), supra; Maine, Black v. Solmitz., supra; Mass., Sorensen v. Sorensen, supra; Mich., Plumley v. Klein, supra; Minn., Anderson v. Stream, supra; Mo | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Hebel v. Hebel Ex Rel. Hebel
green
2 sentences1985In Elam the Supreme Court of South Carolina abrogated the doctrine of parental immunity in its entirety. [5] Alaska, Hebel v. Hebel, supra; Ariz., Streenz v. Streenz, supra; Calif., Gibson v. Gibson, supra; Conn., Conn. Gen. 1985Alaska, Hebel v. Hebel, supra; Ariz., Streenz v. Streenz, supra; Calif., Gibson v. Gibson, supra; Conn., Conn.Gen.Stat.Ann. § 52-572c; Del., Schneider v. Coe, supra; Fla., Ard v. Ard, supra; Hawaii, Petersen v. City and County of Honolulu, supra; Ind., Buffalo v. Buffalo (non custodial parent), supra; Iowa, Turner v. Turner, supra; Kan., Nocktonick v. Nocktonick, supra; Ky., Rigdon v. Rigdon, supra; La., Bondurant v. Bondurant, (non custodial parent), supra; Maine, Black v. Solmitz., supra; Mass., Sorensen v. Sorensen, supra; Mich., Plumley v. Klein, supra; Minn., Anderson v. Stream, supra; Mo | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Rigdon Ex Rel. Rigdon v. Rigdon
green
2 sentences1985Stat. Ann. § 52 -572c; Del., Schneider v. Coe, supra; Fla., Ard v. Ard, supra; Hawaii, Petersen v. City and County of Honolulu, supra; Ind., Buffalo v. Buffalo (non custodial parent), supra; Iowa, Turner v. Turner, supra; Kan., Nocktonick v. Nocktonick, supra; Ky., Rigdon v. Rigdon, supra; La., Bondurant v. Bondurant, (non custodial parent), supra; Maine, Black v. Solmitz, supra; Mass., Sorensen v. Sorensen, supra; Mich., Plumley v. Klein, supra; Minn., Anderson v. Stream, supra; Mont., Transamerican Ins. 1985Alaska, Hebel v. Hebel, supra; Ariz., Streenz v. Streenz, supra; Calif., Gibson v. Gibson, supra; Conn., Conn.Gen.Stat.Ann. § 52-572c; Del., Schneider v. Coe, supra; Fla., Ard v. Ard, supra; Hawaii, Petersen v. City and County of Honolulu, supra; Ind., Buffalo v. Buffalo (non custodial parent), supra; Iowa, Turner v. Turner, supra; Kan., Nocktonick v. Nocktonick, supra; Ky., Rigdon v. Rigdon, supra; La., Bondurant v. Bondurant, (non custodial parent), supra; Maine, Black v. Solmitz., supra; Mass., Sorensen v. Sorensen, supra; Mich., Plumley v. Klein, supra; Minn., Anderson v. Stream, supra; Mo | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Pullen v. Novak
green
2 sentences1985Ala., Owens v. Auto Mutual Indemnity Co., 235 Ala. 9 , 177 So. 133 (1937); see also Hill v. Giordano, 447 So.2d 164 (Ala.1984); Ark., Rambo v. Rambo, 195 Ark. 832 , 114 S.W.2d 468 (1938); but see Attwood v. Estate of Attwood, 276 Ark. 230 , 633 S.W.2d 366 (1982) (immunity does not preclude suit for willful and wanton conduct); Colo., Horton v. Reaves, 186 Colo. 149 , 526 P.2d 304 (1974); Ga., Coleman v. Coleman, 157 Ga.App. 533 , 278 S.E.2d 114 (1981); Ill., Wilkosz v. Wilkosz, 124 Ill.App.3d 904 , 80 Ill.Dec. 249 , 464 N.E.2d 1232 (1984) (transporting child from school is not within the “beyo 1985Ala., Owens v. Auto Mutual Indemnity Co., 235 Ala. 9 , 177 So. 133 (1937); see also Hill v. Giordano, 447 So.2d 164 (Ala.1984); Ark., Rambo v. Rambo, 195 Ark. 832 , 114 S.W.2d 468 (1938); but see Attwood v. Estate of Attwood, 276 Ark. 230 , 633 S.W.2d 366 (1982) (immunity does not preclude suit for willful and wanton conduct); Colo., Horton v. Reaves, 186 Colo. 149 , 526 P.2d 304 (1974); Ga., Coleman v. Coleman, 157 Ga.App. 533 , 278 S.E.2d 114 (1981); Ill., Wilkosz v. Wilkosz, 124 Ill.App.3d 904 , 80 Ill.Dec. 249 , 464 N.E.2d 1232 (1984) (transporting child from school is not within the “beyo | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Horton v. Reaves
green
2 sentences1985Ala., Owens v. Auto Mutual Indemnity Co., 235 Ala. 9 , 177 So. 133 (1937); see also Hill v. Giordano, 447 So.2d 164 (Ala.1984); Ark., Rambo v. Rambo, 195 Ark. 832 , 114 S.W.2d 468 (1938); but see Attwood v. Estate of Attwood, 276 Ark. 230 , 633 S.W.2d 366 (1982) (immunity does not preclude suit for willful and wanton conduct); Colo., Horton v. Reaves, 186 Colo. 149 , 526 P.2d 304 (1974); Ga., Coleman v. Coleman, 157 Ga.App. 533 , 278 S.E.2d 114 (1981); Ill., Wilkosz v. Wilkosz, 124 Ill.App.3d 904 , 80 Ill.Dec. 249 , 464 N.E.2d 1232 (1984) (transporting child from school is not within the “beyo 1985Ala., Owens v. Auto Mutual Indemnity Co., 235 Ala. 9 , 177 So. 133 (1937); see also Hill v. Giordano, 447 So.2d 164 (Ala.1984); Ark., Rambo v. Rambo, 195 Ark. 832 , 114 S.W.2d 468 (1938); but see Attwood v. Estate of Attwood, 276 Ark. 230 , 633 S.W.2d 366 (1982) (immunity does not preclude suit for willful and wanton conduct); Colo., Horton v. Reaves, 186 Colo. 149 , 526 P.2d 304 (1974); Ga., Coleman v. Coleman, 157 Ga.App. 533 , 278 S.E.2d 114 (1981); Ill., Wilkosz v. Wilkosz, 124 Ill.App.3d 904 , 80 Ill.Dec. 249 , 464 N.E.2d 1232 (1984) (transporting child from school is not within the “beyo | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Anderson Ex Rel. Anderson v. Stream
green
2 sentences1985Stat. Ann. § 52 -572c; Del., Schneider v. Coe, supra; Fla., Ard v. Ard, supra; Hawaii, Petersen v. City and County of Honolulu, supra; Ind., Buffalo v. Buffalo (non custodial parent), supra; Iowa, Turner v. Turner, supra; Kan., Nocktonick v. Nocktonick, supra; Ky., Rigdon v. Rigdon, supra; La., Bondurant v. Bondurant, (non custodial parent), supra; Maine, Black v. Solmitz, supra; Mass., Sorensen v. Sorensen, supra; Mich., Plumley v. Klein, supra; Minn., Anderson v. Stream, supra; Mont., Transamerican Ins. 1985Alaska, Hebel v. Hebel, supra; Ariz., Streenz v. Streenz, supra; Calif., Gibson v. Gibson, supra; Conn., Conn.Gen.Stat.Ann. § 52-572c; Del., Schneider v. Coe, supra; Fla., Ard v. Ard, supra; Hawaii, Petersen v. City and County of Honolulu, supra; Ind., Buffalo v. Buffalo (non custodial parent), supra; Iowa, Turner v. Turner, supra; Kan., Nocktonick v. Nocktonick, supra; Ky., Rigdon v. Rigdon, supra; La., Bondurant v. Bondurant, (non custodial parent), supra; Maine, Black v. Solmitz., supra; Mass., Sorensen v. Sorensen, supra; Mich., Plumley v. Klein, supra; Minn., Anderson v. Stream, supra; Mo | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Dorsey v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Pedigo v. Rowley green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Shell Oil Co. v. Ryckman
green
2 sentences1985Ala., Owens v. Auto Mutual Indemnity Co., 235 Ala. 9 , 177 So. 133 (1937); see also Hill v. Giordano, 447 So.2d 164 (Ala.1984); Ark., Rambo v. Rambo, 195 Ark. 832 , 114 S.W.2d 468 (1938); but see Attwood v. Estate of Attwood, 276 Ark. 230 , 633 S.W.2d 366 (1982) (immunity does not preclude suit for willful and wanton conduct); Colo., Horton v. Reaves, 186 Colo. 149 , 526 P.2d 304 (1974); Ga., Coleman v. Coleman, 157 Ga.App. 533 , 278 S.E.2d 114 (1981); Ill., Wilkosz v. Wilkosz, 124 Ill.App.3d 904 , 80 Ill.Dec. 249 , 464 N.E.2d 1232 (1984) (transporting child from school is not within the “beyo 1985Ala., Owens v. Auto Mutual Indemnity Co., 235 Ala. 9 , 177 So. 133 (1937); see also Hill v. Giordano, 447 So.2d 164 (Ala.1984); Ark., Rambo v. Rambo, 195 Ark. 832 , 114 S.W.2d 468 (1938); but see Attwood v. Estate of Attwood, 276 Ark. 230 , 633 S.W.2d 366 (1982) (immunity does not preclude suit for willful and wanton conduct); Colo., Horton v. Reaves, 186 Colo. 149 , 526 P.2d 304 (1974); Ga., Coleman v. Coleman, 157 Ga.App. 533 , 278 S.E.2d 114 (1981); Ill., Wilkosz v. Wilkosz, 124 Ill.App.3d 904 , 80 Ill.Dec. 249 , 464 N.E.2d 1232 (1984) (transporting child from school is not within the “beyo | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Turner v. Turner
green
2 sentences1985Stat. Ann. § 52 -572c; Del., Schneider v. Coe, supra; Fla., Ard v. Ard, supra; Hawaii, Petersen v. City and County of Honolulu, supra; Ind., Buffalo v. Buffalo (non custodial parent), supra; Iowa, Turner v. Turner, supra; Kan., Nocktonick v. Nocktonick, supra; Ky., Rigdon v. Rigdon, supra; La., Bondurant v. Bondurant, (non custodial parent), supra; Maine, Black v. Solmitz, supra; Mass., Sorensen v. Sorensen, supra; Mich., Plumley v. Klein, supra; Minn., Anderson v. Stream, supra; Mont., Transamerican Ins. 1985Alaska, Hebel v. Hebel, supra; Ariz., Streenz v. Streenz, supra; Calif., Gibson v. Gibson, supra; Conn., Conn.Gen.Stat.Ann. § 52-572c; Del., Schneider v. Coe, supra; Fla., Ard v. Ard, supra; Hawaii, Petersen v. City and County of Honolulu, supra; Ind., Buffalo v. Buffalo (non custodial parent), supra; Iowa, Turner v. Turner, supra; Kan., Nocktonick v. Nocktonick, supra; Ky., Rigdon v. Rigdon, supra; La., Bondurant v. Bondurant, (non custodial parent), supra; Maine, Black v. Solmitz., supra; Mass., Sorensen v. Sorensen, supra; Mich., Plumley v. Klein, supra; Minn., Anderson v. Stream, supra; Mo | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Owens v. Auto Mut. Indemnity Co.
green
2 sentences1985Ala., Owens v. Auto Mutual Indemnity Co., 235 Ala. 9 , 177 So. 133 (1937); see also Hill v. Giordano, 447 So.2d 164 (Ala.1984); Ark., Rambo v. Rambo, 195 Ark. 832 , 114 S.W.2d 468 (1938); but see Attwood v. Estate of Attwood, 276 Ark. 230 , 633 S.W.2d 366 (1982) (immunity does not preclude suit for willful and wanton conduct); Colo., Horton v. Reaves, 186 Colo. 149 , 526 P.2d 304 (1974); Ga., Coleman v. Coleman, 157 Ga.App. 533 , 278 S.E.2d 114 (1981); Ill., Wilkosz v. Wilkosz, 124 Ill.App.3d 904 , 80 Ill.Dec. 249 , 464 N.E.2d 1232 (1984) (transporting child from school is not within the “beyo 1985Ala., Owens v. Auto Mutual Indemnity Co., 235 Ala. 9 , 177 So. 133 (1937); see also Hill v. Giordano, 447 So.2d 164 (Ala.1984); Ark., Rambo v. Rambo, 195 Ark. 832 , 114 S.W.2d 468 (1938); but see Attwood v. Estate of Attwood, 276 Ark. 230 , 633 S.W.2d 366 (1982) (immunity does not preclude suit for willful and wanton conduct); Colo., Horton v. Reaves, 186 Colo. 149 , 526 P.2d 304 (1974); Ga., Coleman v. Coleman, 157 Ga.App. 533 , 278 S.E.2d 114 (1981); Ill., Wilkosz v. Wilkosz, 124 Ill.App.3d 904 , 80 Ill.Dec. 249 , 464 N.E.2d 1232 (1984) (transporting child from school is not within the “beyo | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Rambo v. Rambo
green
2 sentences1985Ala., Owens v. Auto Mutual Indemnity Co., 235 Ala. 9 , 177 So. 133 (1937); see also Hill v. Giordano, 447 So.2d 164 (Ala.1984); Ark., Rambo v. Rambo, 195 Ark. 832 , 114 S.W.2d 468 (1938); but see Attwood v. Estate of Attwood, 276 Ark. 230 , 633 S.W.2d 366 (1982) (immunity does not preclude suit for willful and wanton conduct); Colo., Horton v. Reaves, 186 Colo. 149 , 526 P.2d 304 (1974); Ga., Coleman v. Coleman, 157 Ga.App. 533 , 278 S.E.2d 114 (1981); Ill., Wilkosz v. Wilkosz, 124 Ill.App.3d 904 , 80 Ill.Dec. 249 , 464 N.E.2d 1232 (1984) (transporting child from school is not within the “beyo 1985Ala., Owens v. Auto Mutual Indemnity Co., 235 Ala. 9 , 177 So. 133 (1937); see also Hill v. Giordano, 447 So.2d 164 (Ala.1984); Ark., Rambo v. Rambo, 195 Ark. 832 , 114 S.W.2d 468 (1938); but see Attwood v. Estate of Attwood, 276 Ark. 230 , 633 S.W.2d 366 (1982) (immunity does not preclude suit for willful and wanton conduct); Colo., Horton v. Reaves, 186 Colo. 149 , 526 P.2d 304 (1974); Ga., Coleman v. Coleman, 157 Ga.App. 533 , 278 S.E.2d 114 (1981); Ill., Wilkosz v. Wilkosz, 124 Ill.App.3d 904 , 80 Ill.Dec. 249 , 464 N.E.2d 1232 (1984) (transporting child from school is not within the “beyo | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Burns v. Commonwealth green | 1 | 1928–1928 |
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.