right to invoke doctrine (Tennessee) · Go Syfert
← Tennessee issues

right to invoke doctrine in Tennessee

6 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1943–2004 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Electric Light Co. v. Gas Co.green
tenn · 1897 · cited in 3 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 1943–2004
2 sentences

2004See our own case of Electric Light & Power Co. v. Bristol Gas, Electric Light & Power Co., 99 Tenn. 371 , 42 S.W. 19 , 21, wherein the Court held that one "will not be allowed to assert his lien to the prejudice of persons whom he has induced to believe that his debt has been satisfied, or that he will claim no lien and who, in that belief, have purchased that property on which the lien rests." The Court further held the right to invoke the doctrine "does not always rest on the intention of the party to be affected by it, but is dependent, rather, upon the reasonable or legitimate effect of hi

1970See our own case of Electric Light & Power Co. v. Bristol Gas, Electric Light & Power Co., 99 Tenn. 371 , 42 S.W. 19 , 21, wherein the Court held that one ‘will not be allowed to assert his lien to the prejudice of persons whom he has induced to believe that his debt has been satisfied, or that he will claim no lien and who, in that belief, have purchased that property on which the lien rests.’ The Court further held the right to invoke the doctrine ‘does not always rest on the intention of the party to be affected by it, but is dependent, rather, upon the reasonable or legitimate effect of hi

33
State v. Hurleygreen
tenn · 1994 · cited in 2 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 1997–1998
2 sentences

1998We note that in Hurley, 876 S.W.2d 57 , our supreme court modified the marital privilege in criminal cases so that the testifying spouse alone had the right to invoke the privilege.

1997In State v. Hurley, 876 S.W.2d 57, 64 (Tenn.1993), ce rt. denied, - U.S. -, 513 U.S. 933 , 115 S.Ct. 328 , 130 L.Ed.2d 287 (1994), our supreme court modified the marital privilege in criminal cases so that the testifying spouse alone had the right to invoke the privilege.

12

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Wampol v. Kountz neutral
sd · 1901
2 sentences

2004Wampol v. Kountz, 14 S.D. 334, 339 , 85 N.W. 595 , 86 Am.St.Rep. 765 ; footnote, 31 C.J.S., Estoppel, § 87, p. 305, quoting Farr v. Semmler, 24 S.D. 290 , 123 N.W. 835, 838 .

2004Wampol v. Kountz, 14 S.D. 334, 339 , 85 N.W. 595 , 86 Am.St.Rep. 765 ; footnote, 31 C.J.S., Estoppel, § 87, p. 305, quoting Farr v. Semmler, 24 S.D. 290 , 123 N.W. 835, 838 .

31943–2004
Farr v. Semmler green
sd · 1909
2 sentences

2004Wampol v. Kountz, 14 S.D. 334, 339 , 85 N.W. 595 , 86 Am.St.Rep. 765 ; footnote, 31 C.J.S., Estoppel, § 87, p. 305, quoting Farr v. Semmler, 24 S.D. 290 , 123 N.W. 835, 838 .

2004Wampol v. Kountz, 14 S.D. 334, 339 , 85 N.W. 595 , 86 Am.St.Rep. 765 ; footnote, 31 C.J.S., Estoppel, § 87, p. 305, quoting Farr v. Semmler, 24 S.D. 290 , 123 N.W. 835, 838 .

21970–2004
Hurley v. Tennessee green
scotus · 1994
2 sentences

1997In State v. Hurley, 876 S.W.2d 57, 64 (Tenn.1993), ce rt. denied, - U.S. -, 513 U.S. 933 , 115 S.Ct. 328 , 130 L.Ed.2d 287 (1994), our supreme court modified the marital privilege in criminal cases so that the testifying spouse alone had the right to invoke the privilege.

1997In State v. Hurley, 876 S.W .2d 57, 64 (Tenn . 1993), cert. denied, U.S. , 115 S.Ct. 328 (1994), our supreme court modified the marital privilege in criminal cases so that the testifying spouse alone had the right to invoke the privilege.

21997–1997
Burton v. State green
tenncrimapp · 1973
1 sentence

1997However, the opinion was filed on April 5, 1993, -42- public policy requires that neither the husband nor the wife shall be permitted to testify, in criminal cases, as to any matter coming to his or her knowledge by reason of the marital relation." See also Burton v. State, 501 S.W.2d 814 , 817- 819 (Tenn. Crim.

11997–1997
Kindler v. Pennsylvania green
scotus · 1994
2 sentences

1997In State v. Hurley, 876 S.W.2d 57, 64 (Tenn.1993), ce rt. denied, - U.S. -, 513 U.S. 933 , 115 S.Ct. 328 , 130 L.Ed.2d 287 (1994), our supreme court modified the marital privilege in criminal cases so that the testifying spouse alone had the right to invoke the privilege.

1997In State v. Hurley, 876 S.W.2d 57, 64 (Tenn. 1993), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 513 U.S. 933 , 115 S.Ct. 328 , 130 L.Ed.2d 287 (1994), our supreme court modified the marital privilege in criminal cases so that the testifying spouse alone had the right to invoke the privilege.

11997–1997

Statutes the citing opinions construe

TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-1-201 (3) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204 (3) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

MD 8 (1989–2017) MO 7 (1907–2012) GA 6 (1896–2018) TN 6 (1943–2004) CA 6 (1905–2015) NY 5 (1908–1982) TX 5 (1982–1999) FL 4 (1977–2012) IL 4 (1914–2020) VA 4 (1987–2019) LA 3 (1944–2000) CT 3 (1927–2011) AL 3 (1981–1986) NC 3 (1993–2015) OH 3 (2001–2018) PA 2 (2008–2014) WA 2 (1948–1950) AZ 2 (1987–2015) MN 2 (1984–1986) DC 2 (1980–1980) AK 2 (1965–1994) OK 2 (2011–2012)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check