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 1990–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Armstrong v. Neelgreen2 sentences2014“When the evidentiary basis of a decision involving an unemployment compensation claim is attacked, Tenn. Code Ann. § 50 - 7-304(i)(2)(D) and (E) direct the courts to review the entire record, including any proof that -6- fairly detracts from the agency’s decision, to determine whether it is arbitrary, capricious, characterized by an abuse of discretion, or unsupported by substantial and material evidence.” Armstrong v. Neel, 725 S.W.2d 953, 955 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986) (footnote omitted). 2013“When the evidentiary basis of a decision involving an unemployment compensation claim is attacked, Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-304 (i)(2)(D) and (E) direct the courts to review the entire record, including any proof that fairly detracts from the agency’s decision, to determine whether it is arbitrary, capricious, characterized by an abuse of discretion, or unsupported by substantial and material evidence.” Armstrong v. Neel, 725 S.W.2d 953, 955 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986) (footnote omitted). | 3 | 3 |
Harney v. Meadowbrook Nursing Centergreen2 sentences2025And although Chism suggested that a public policy exception should exist when an employee is discharged for obeying a lawful subpoena, 762 S.W.2d at 556 , this Court later declined to adopt an exception when an employee was discharged for testifying under subpoena in a former coworker’s unemployment compensation hearing, see Harney v. Meadowbrook Nursing Ctr., 784 S.W.2d 921 , 922–23 (Tenn. 1990). 2007See also Harney v. Meadowbrook Nursing Center, 784 S.W.2d 921, 923 (Tenn. 1990) (refusing to recognize a claim of retaliatory discharge when the employee was discharged in retaliation for testifying against the employer at a co-employee’s unemployment compensation hearing); Rigsby v. Murray Ohio Mfg. | 1 | 2 |
Gordon v. REVIEW BD. OF IND. EMPLOYMENT SEC.green2 sentences1990See, e.g., Gordon v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, 426 N.E.2d 1364 (Ind.App.1981). 1990See, e.g., Gordon v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, 426 N.E.2d 1364 (Ind. App. 1981). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chism v. Mid-South Milling Co., Inc.
red
1 sentence2025And although Chism suggested that a public policy exception should exist when an employee is discharged for obeying a lawful subpoena, 762 S.W.2d at 556 , this Court later declined to adopt an exception when an employee was discharged for testifying under subpoena in a former coworker’s unemployment compensation hearing, see Harney v. Meadowbrook Nursing Ctr., 784 S.W.2d 921 , 922–23 (Tenn. 1990). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
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.
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.