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 1988–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Michael Lancaster v. Ferrell Paving, Inc. v. Everest Indemnity Insurance Companygreen1 sentence2021See Lancaster v. Ferrell Paving, Inc., 397 S.W.3d 606, 611-12 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (“[W]e find that both parties consented to the oral modification of the Security Service Agreement and both parties waived the requirement that contractual modifications must be in writing.”).3 3 Based on the case law referenced by the trial court and its corollary finding that there had been a modification, we interpret its own finding that “the Statute of Frauds defense was waived” as signaling the waiver of the provision incorporated into the Counter-Offer which prohibited modifications “unless signed by all | 1 | 1 |
Blair v. Brownsongreen1 sentence2019See id. (“In a contract for the sale of lands . . . the party to be charged is the party against whom enforcement of the contract is sought.”); see also Blair v. Brownson, 197 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tenn. 2006) (“[T]oday [we] announce a new rule . . . that interprets “party to be charged” in the Statute of Frauds analysis to refer to the party against whom enforcement of the contract is sought.”). | 1 | 1 |
Cobble v. Langfordgreen1 sentence2001The application, however, of the Statute of Frauds is not without limits, and courts should not allow a person to use the Statute “to avoid contracts or to ‘grant a privilege to a person to refuse to perform what he has agreed to do.’” GRW Enter., Inc. v. Davis, 797 S.W.2d at 611 (quoting Cobble v. Langford, 230 S.W.2d 194, 196 (Tenn. 1950)); see also Jarrett v. Epperly, 896 F.2d 1013, 1018 (6th Cir. 1990) (holding that “under Tennessee law, a wrongdoer is not permitted to rely on the Statute of Frauds defense”). | 1 | 1 |
Kenneth Jarrett v. Harrison Epperly and Epperly Inc., F/k/a United Brake Systems, Inc.green1 sentence2001The application, however, of the Statute of Frauds is not without limits, and courts should not allow a person to use the Statute “to avoid contracts or to ‘grant a privilege to a person to refuse to perform what he has agreed to do.’” GRW Enter., Inc. v. Davis, 797 S.W.2d at 611 (quoting Cobble v. Langford, 230 S.W.2d 194, 196 (Tenn. 1950)); see also Jarrett v. Epperly, 896 F.2d 1013, 1018 (6th Cir. 1990) (holding that “under Tennessee law, a wrongdoer is not permitted to rely on the Statute of Frauds defense”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
James Casazza v. Joseph C. Kiser
green
1 sentence2017Id. (citations omitted). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Carbon Processing & Reclamation, LLC v. Valero Marketing & Supply Co.
green
1 sentence2017A detailed overview of this subject was recently provided by a federal district court in Carbon Processing and Reclamation, LLC v. Valero Marketing and Supply Co., 823 F.Supp.2d 786 (W.D. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Godfrey v. Ruiz
green
1 sentence2010Godfrey, 90 S.W.3d at 695 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
GRW Enterprises, Inc. v. Davis
green
1 sentence2001The application, however, of the Statute of Frauds is not without limits, and courts should not allow a person to use the Statute “to avoid contracts or to ‘grant a privilege to a person to refuse to perform what he has agreed to do.’” GRW Enter., Inc. v. Davis, 797 S.W.2d at 611 (quoting Cobble v. Langford, 230 S.W.2d 194, 196 (Tenn. 1950)); see also Jarrett v. Epperly, 896 F.2d 1013, 1018 (6th Cir. 1990) (holding that “under Tennessee law, a wrongdoer is not permitted to rely on the Statute of Frauds defense”). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Evans v. Belmont Land Co.
green
2 sentences1988Plaintiffs cite Evans v. Belmont Land Co., 92 Tenn. 348 , 21 S.W. 670 (1893). 1988Plaintiffs cite Evans v. Belmont Land Co., 92 Tenn. 348 , 21 S.W. 670 (1893). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.