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 2001–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Karash v. Pigottgreen2 sentences2013The Wynn Court also pointed out an important principle that has a significant bearing on our decision: “Tennessee law and policy have always favored permitting litigants to amend their pleadings to enable disputes to be resolved on their merits rather than on legal technicalities.” 2009 WL 2957922 at *4 (quoting Hardcastle, 170 S.W.2d at 80); see also Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 432 (Tenn. 2011) (noting “the strong preference embodied in the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure that cases stating a valid legal claim brought by Tennessee citizens be decided 2013Jones v. Prof'l Motorcycle Escort Serv., L.L.C., 193 S.W.3d 564, 572 (Tenn. 2006) (“The Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure are intended ‘to insure that cases and controversies be determined upon their merits and not upon legal technicalities or procedural niceties.’ ”) (quoting Karash v. Pigott, 530 S.W.2d 775, 777 (Tenn. 1975)); see also Norton v. Everhart, 895 S.W.2d 317, 320 (Tenn. 1995); Patton v. Dixon, 58 S.W. 299, 301 (Tenn. 1900). | 3 | 3 |
Jones v. Professional Motorcycle Escort Service, L.L.C.green2 sentences2013The Wynn Court also pointed out an important principle that has a significant bearing on our decision: “Tennessee law and policy have always favored permitting litigants to amend their pleadings to enable disputes to be resolved on their merits rather than on legal technicalities.” 2009 WL 2957922 at *4 (quoting Hardcastle, 170 S.W.2d at 80); see also Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 432 (Tenn. 2011) (noting “the strong preference embodied in the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure that cases stating a valid legal claim brought by Tennessee citizens be decided 2013Jones v. Prof'l Motorcycle Escort Serv., L.L.C., 193 S.W.3d 564, 572 (Tenn. 2006) (“The Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure are intended ‘to insure that cases and controversies be determined upon their merits and not upon legal technicalities or procedural niceties.’ ”) (quoting Karash v. Pigott, 530 S.W.2d 775, 777 (Tenn. 1975)); see also Norton v. Everhart, 895 S.W.2d 317, 320 (Tenn. 1995); Patton v. Dixon, 58 S.W. 299, 301 (Tenn. 1900). | 3 | 3 |
Patton v. Dixongreen2 sentences2013Jones v. Prof'l Motorcycle Escort Serv., L.L.C., 193 S.W.3d 564, 572 (Tenn. 2006) (“The Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure are intended ‘to insure that cases and controversies be determined upon their merits and not upon legal technicalities or procedural niceties.’ ”) (quoting Karash v. Pigott, 530 S.W.2d 775, 777 (Tenn. 1975)); see also Norton v. Everhart, 895 S.W.2d 317, 320 (Tenn. 1995); Patton v. Dixon, 58 S.W. 299, 301 (Tenn. 1900). 2011Jones v. Prof'l Motorcycle Escort Serv., L.L.C., 193 S.W.3d 564, 572 (Tenn.2006) (“The Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure are intended ‘to insure that cases and controversies be determined upon their merits and not upon legal technicalities or procedural niceties.’ ”) (quoting Karash v. Pigott, 530 S.W.2d 775, 777 (Tenn.1975)); see also Patton v. Dixon, 105 Tenn. 97 , 58 S.W. 299, 301 (1900). | 2 | 2 |
Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc.green2 sentences2013Webb, 346 S.W.3d at 430-35 . . 2013The Wynn Court also pointed out an important principle that has a significant bearing on our decision: “Tennessee law and policy have always favored permitting litigants to amend their pleadings to enable disputes to be resolved on their merits rather than on legal technicalities.” 2009 WL 2957922 at *4 (quoting Hardcastle, 170 S.W.2d at 80); see also Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 432 (Tenn. 2011) (noting “the strong preference embodied in the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure that cases stating a valid legal claim brought by Tennessee citizens be decided | 1 | 3 |
Norton v. Everhartgreen1 sentence2013Jones v. Prof'l Motorcycle Escort Serv., L.L.C., 193 S.W.3d 564, 572 (Tenn. 2006) (“The Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure are intended ‘to insure that cases and controversies be determined upon their merits and not upon legal technicalities or procedural niceties.’ ”) (quoting Karash v. Pigott, 530 S.W.2d 775, 777 (Tenn. 1975)); see also Norton v. Everhart, 895 S.W.2d 317, 320 (Tenn. 1995); Patton v. Dixon, 58 S.W. 299, 301 (Tenn. 1900). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McCurry v. Chevy Chase Bank, FSB
green
2 sentences2013In reaching its conclusion, this Court cited two reasons provided by the Washington Supreme Court in McCurry v. Chevy Chase Bank, FSB, 169 Wash.2d 96 , 233 P.3d 861 (2010), as well as four additional reasons based on both Tennessee-specific concerns and scholarly commentary: (1) Twombly and Iqbal mark "a substantial departure” from, and have resulted in "a loss of clarity, stability, and predictability in[,] federal pleading practice”; (2) the new federal standard "incorporates an elevation and determination of likelihood of success on the merits ... at the earliest stage of the proceedings,” 2013In reaching its conclusion, this Court cited two reasons provided by the Washington Supreme Court in McCurry v. Chevy Chase Bank, FFS, 233 P.3d 861 (Wash. 2010), as well as four additional reasons based on both Tennessee-specific concerns and scholarly commentary: (1) Twombly and Iqbal mark “a substantial departure” from, and have resulted in “a loss of clarity, stability, and predictability in[,] federal pleading practice”; (2) the new federal standard “incorporates an elevation and determination of likelihood of success on the merits . . . at the earliest stage of the proceedings,” a procedu | 2 | 2013–2013 |
McCurry v. Chevy Chase Bank, FSB
green
1 sentence2013In reaching its conclusion, this Court cited two reasons provided by the Washington Supreme Court in McCurry v. Chevy Chase Bank, FSB, 169 Wash.2d 96 , 233 P.3d 861 (2010), as well as four additional reasons based on both Tennessee-specific concerns and scholarly commentary: (1) Twombly and Iqbal mark "a substantial departure” from, and have resulted in "a loss of clarity, stability, and predictability in[,] federal pleading practice”; (2) the new federal standard "incorporates an elevation and determination of likelihood of success on the merits ... at the earliest stage of the proceedings,” | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Terry v. Niblack
green
1 sentence2001Plaintiff cites Terry v. Niblack, 979 S.W.2d 583 (Tenn. 1998), for this proposition. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.