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 2 courts 1998–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Duran v. Hyundai Motor America, Inc.green2 sentences2024Cf. Sanford v. Waugh & Co., 328 S.W.3d 836, 848 (Tenn. 2010) (explaining that, because punitive damages require proof by clear and convincing evidence, in reviewing a motion for directed verdict on punitive damages, “a court must determine whether there is sufficient evidence, using the clear and convincing evidence standard, to submit the punitive damage claim to the jury” (quoting Duran v. Hyundai Motor Am., Inc., 271 S.W.3d 178, 207 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008))). 2012Accordingly, “‘[w]hen presented with a motion seeking a directed verdict on a punitive damage claim, a court must determine whether there is sufficient evidence, using the clear -10- and convincing evidence standard, to submit the punitive damage claim to the jury.’” Sanford, 328 S.W.3d at 848 (quoting Duran v. Hyundai Motor Am., Inc., 271 S.W.3d 178, 207 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008); accord Hughes v. Lumbermens Mut. | 4 | 4 |
Sanford v. Waugh & Co., Inc.green2 sentences2024Cf. Sanford v. Waugh & Co., 328 S.W.3d 836, 848 (Tenn. 2010) (explaining that, because punitive damages require proof by clear and convincing evidence, in reviewing a motion for directed verdict on punitive damages, “a court must determine whether there is sufficient evidence, using the clear and convincing evidence standard, to submit the punitive damage claim to the jury” (quoting Duran v. Hyundai Motor Am., Inc., 271 S.W.3d 178, 207 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008))). 2012Accordingly, “‘[w]hen presented with a motion seeking a directed verdict on a punitive damage claim, a court must determine whether there is sufficient evidence, using the clear -10- and convincing evidence standard, to submit the punitive damage claim to the jury.’” Sanford, 328 S.W.3d at 848 (quoting Duran v. Hyundai Motor Am., Inc., 271 S.W.3d 178, 207 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008); accord Hughes v. Lumbermens Mut. | 2 | 3 |
Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co.green1 sentence1998Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896, 900-901 (Tenn. 1992) in order to determine whether the jury will proceed to consider the plaintiff’s punitive damage claim. -14- to compensatory damages, it should state the amount of the damages and should also identify each of the causes of action for which the plaintiff has carried its burden of proof. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.