45 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1987–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.green2 sentences2006Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 516 , 112 S. Ct. 2608, 2617 (1992); Riggs v. Burson, 941 S.W.2d 44, 48 (Tenn. 1997). 2006Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 516 , 112 S. Ct. 2608, 2617 (1992); Riggs v. Burson, 941 S.W.2d 44, 48 (Tenn. 1997). | 28 | 29 |
Riggs v. Bursongreen2 sentences2006Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 516 , 112 S. Ct. 2608, 2617 (1992); Riggs v. Burson, 941 S.W.2d 44, 48 (Tenn. 1997). 2006Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 516 , 112 S. Ct. 2608, 2617 (1992); Riggs v. Burson, 941 S.W.2d 44, 48 (Tenn. 1997). | 28 | 28 |
At&T Mobility LLC v. Concepciongreen2 sentences2015We must take care to consider the admonition in Concepcion that, under the doctrine of preemption, state courts cannot adopt “defenses that apply only to arbitration or that derive their meaning from the fact that an agreement to arbitrate is at issue.” Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. at 1746. 2015We must take care to consider the admonition in Concepcion that, under the doctrine of preemption, state courts cannot adopt “defenses that apply only to arbitration or that derive their meaning from the fact that an agreement to arbitrate is at issue.” Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. at 1746. | 2 | 2 |
American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolensgreen2 sentences2001In Wolens, the Court concluded that plaintiff’s claims under the Consumer Fraud Act were preempted based on the “full text of the preemption clause, and of the ADA’s purpose to leave largely to the airlines themselves, and not at all to states, the selection and design of marketing mechanisms appropriate to the furnishing to the air transportation services.” 513 U.S. at 228 , 115 S.Ct. at 823 . 2001In Wolens, the Court concluded that plaintiff’s claims under the Consumer Fraud Act were preempted based on the “full text of the preemption clause, and of the ADA’s purpose to leave largely to the airlines themselves, and not at all to states, the selection and design of marketing mechanisms appropriate to the furnishing to the air transportation services.” 513 U.S. at 228 , 115 S.Ct. at 823 . | 1 | 2 |
McHaffie Ex Rel. McHaffie v. Bunchgreen2 sentences2016As the Missouri Supreme Court noted in McHaffie v. Bunch, 891 S.W.2d 822, 826 (Mo. 1995), “[t]he liability of the employer is fixed by the amount of the liability of the employee.” I disagree that adoption of the preemption rule runs afoul of Tennessee‟s comparative fault principles. 2016McHaffie, 891 S.W.2d at 826 ; Durben v. Am. | 1 | 1 |
Lorio v. Cartwrightgreen1 sentence2016Lorio v. Cartwright, 768 F.Supp. 658, 660 (N.D. | 1 | 1 |
McIntyre v. Balentinegreen1 sentence2016On the contrary, our supreme court, in McIntyre v. Balentine, directed that “[i]n all trials where the issue of comparative fault is before a jury, the trial court shall instruct the jury on the effect of the jury‟s finding as to the percentage of negligence as between the plaintiff or plaintiffs and the defendant or defendants.” McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52, 57 (Tenn. 1992); see also 8 Tenn. Prac. | 1 | 1 |
Janet Harper v. Keith Churngreen1 sentence2016See Harper v. Churn, 83 S.W.3d 142, 146-48 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (involving the assertion of a negligent entrustment claim and a vicarious liability claim at trial). | 1 | 1 |
Clooney v. Geetinggreen1 sentence2016Although the preemption rule endeavors, in part, to guard juries from being prejudiced by evidence that could be used to support independent negligence claims against an employer, see, e.g., Clooney v. Geeting, 352 So. 2d 1216, 1220 (Fla. Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Carroll v. Whitneygreen1 sentence2016If we adopted the preemption rule, we would effectively “force a jury to allocate fault between parties who were not wholly responsible.” Carroll v. Whitney, 29 S.W.3d 14, 19 (Tenn. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co.green2 sentences2015To use the pertinent language from the preemption analysis, “the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the objectives of Congress.” Schneidewind, 485 U.S. at 300 , 108 S.Ct. 1145 (citations omitted). 2015To use the pertinent language from the preemption analysis, “the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the objectives of Congress.” Schneidewind, 485 U.S. at 300 , 108 S.Ct. 1145 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Wyeth v. Levinegreen1 sentence2014Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 565 (2009) (quoting Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 485 (1996)). | 1 | 1 |
Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohrgreen1 sentence2014Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 565 (2009) (quoting Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 485 (1996)). | 1 | 1 |
Stanford v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc.green1 sentence2014See Stanford v. Caesars Entm't, Inc., 430 F.Supp.2d 749 , 755 n. 4 (W.D.Tenn.2006). . | 1 | 1 |
Joseph J. Waymire v. Norfolk and Western Railway Companygreen1 sentence2009For example, in Waymire v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co., 218 F.3d 773, 774 (7th Cir. 2000), a train was involved in an accident with a truck at a railroad crossing. | 1 | 1 |
Gustafson v. City Of Lake Angelusgreen1 sentence1997See Gustafson, 76 F.3d at 791 ; Garden State Farms, 390 A.2d at 1180-1181 . | 1 | 1 |
Wright v. County of Winnebagogreen2 sentences1997Second, although the preemption analysis may have differed if the statute eliminated an existing use based solely on aircraft noise, see Wright v. County of Winnebago, 73 Ill.App.3d 337 , 29 Ill.Dec. 347 , 391 N.E.2d 772, 777 (1979), the law, as we have discussed, is related to numerous legislative interests. 1997Second, although the preemption analysis may have differed if the statute eliminated an existing use based solely on aircraft noise, see Wright v. County of Winnebago, 73 Ill.App.3d 337 , 29 Ill.Dec. 347 , 391 N.E.2d 772, 777 (1979), the law, as we have discussed, is related to numerous legislative interests. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. FCC
green
2 sentences1987The power given to Congress by Article VI of the Constitution results in the so-called preemption doctrine: “The supremacy clause of Article VI of the Constitution provides Congress with the power to preempt state laws.” Louisiana Public Service Commission v. Federal Communications Commission, 476 U.S. 335 , 106 S.Ct. 1890, 1898 , 90 L.Ed.2d 369 (1986). 1987The power given to Congress by Article VI of the Constitution results in the so-called preemption doctrine: “The supremacy clause of Article VI of the Constitution provides Congress with the power to preempt state laws.” Louisiana Public Service Commission v. Federal Communications Commission, 476 U.S. 335 , 106 S.Ct. 1890, 1898 , 90 L.Ed.2d 369 (1986). | 2 | 1987–1987 |
Wells v. Chattanooga Bakery, Inc.
green
1 sentence2022Id. at 393 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2016The California Supreme Court, in adopting the preemption rule, described the nexus that exists between an employer‟s negligent entrustment or negligent hiring and its employee‟s own negligence: No matter how negligent an employer was in entrusting a vehicle to an employee, however, it is only if the employee then drove negligently that the employer can be liable for negligent entrustment, hiring, or retention. [Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005), 131 Cal.App.4th 853, 863-864 , 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 351 ]. 2016The California Supreme Court, in adopting the preemption rule, described the nexus that exists between an employer‟s negligent entrustment or negligent hiring and its employee‟s own negligence: No matter how negligent an employer was in entrusting a vehicle to an employee, however, it is only if the employee then drove negligently that the employer can be liable for negligent entrustment, hiring, or retention. [Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005), 131 Cal.App.4th 853, 863-864 , 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 351 ]. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Geier v. American Honda Motor Co.
green
2 sentences2013It thereby would have presented an obstacle to the variety and mix of devices that the federal regulation sought.” Id. at 881 , 120 S.Ct. 1913 . 2013It thereby would have presented an obstacle to the variety and mix of devices that the federal regulation sought.” Id. at 881 , 120 S.Ct. 1913 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
green
2 sentences2001The argument that the savings clause in the prior statute limited the scope of the preemption clause was rejected by the Court stating that “[a] general ‘remedies’ saving clause cannot be allowed to supersede the specific substantive pre-emption provision...” Id. at 385 , 112 S.Ct. at 2037 . 2001The argument that the savings clause in the prior statute limited the scope of the preemption clause was rejected by the Court stating that “[a] general ‘remedies’ saving clause cannot be allowed to supersede the specific substantive pre-emption provision...” Id. at 385 , 112 S.Ct. at 2037 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Garden State Farms, Inc. v. Mayor Louis Bay, II
green
1 sentence1997See Gustafson, 76 F.3d at 791 ; Garden State Farms, 390 A.2d at 1180-1181 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.