Case law

First Nat. Bank of Chattanooga v. Coffey

170 Tenn. 469 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Jul 6, 1936

State v. Brown, 157 Tenn., 39 , 6 S. W. (2d), 560 . … S. v. Schooner Peggy], 1 Cranch, [103], 104 [ 2 L. Ed., 49 ]; [Yeaton v. U. S.], 5 Cranch, 281 [ 3 L. Ed., 101 ]; [U. S. v. The Helen], 6 Cranch, 203 [ 3 L. Ed., 199 ]; [Schooner Rachel v. U. S.], 6 Cranch, 329 [ 3 L.

M. M. Newcomer Co. v. Newcomer's New Store

142 Tenn. 108 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1919

This proposition was accepted by the corporation through its board of directors, and accordingly the entire interests of the partnership were transferred to the complainant. The defendant M. M. … In Mobile Transfer Co. v.

Evans v. Belmont Land Co.

92 Tenn. 348 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Mar 4, 1893

Williams v. Love, 2 Head, 84 ; White v. Blakemore, 8 Lea, 62 . … Tillery, 1 Tenn., 268 ; Brown & Reid v. Bigley, 3 Tenn. Ch., 629.

Modjeski & Masters v. Pack

215 Tenn. 629 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Mar 4, 1965

In the English case of King v. … Co. v.

Stearns Coal & Lumber Co. v. Patton

134 Tenn. 556 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1915

Jones v. Perry, 10 Yerg., 59 , 30 Am. Dec., 430 ; Jones v. Nixon, 18 Pickle, 95 , 50 S. W., 740 ; Porter v. Jones, 6 Cold., 318 ; Almony v. Hicks, 3 Head, 41 . Judge Wright, in Almony v. … Hughes v. Brown, 4 Pick (88 Tenn.), 578, 13 S. W., 286 , 8 L. R. A., 480. A careful reading of Judge Lurton’s opinion will show that it contains no statement so broad, sweeping, and unqualified as the syllabus.

Smith v. State ex rel. Thomas

194 Tenn. 155 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Jun 7, 1952

Brown v. Grayson, 160 Tenn. 374, 379 , 24 S. W. (2d) 894 . … Compare Anderson County v. Hays, 99 Tenn. 542, 548 , 42 S. W. 266 .

Southeastern Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Groves

175 Tenn. 584 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1940

Wiley v. Railroad Co., 44 N. J. L., [247], 248; [Milwaukee & St. P.] Railroad Co. v. Kellog, 94 U. S., 469 , 24 L. Ed., 256 . … Railroad Company v. Birney, 71 Ill., 391 .

Winchester v. Heiskell

84 Tenn. 556 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1886

This question was raised in the case of Sharp v. … The beneficiaries in said mortgage, being subsequent encumbrancers, were not necessary parties to the proceeding to enforce said prior lien: Brown v. Mercer, 10 Hum., 359 ; Mims v. Mims, 1 Hum., 425 ; 1 Daniel Chan.

Garrison v. Graybeel

202 Tenn. 567 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1957

Thus in Revell v. … In Keen v.

Moto-Pep v. McGoldrick

303 S.W.2d 326 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Jun 7, 1957

Thus in Britt v. … In Chattanooga Plow Co. v.

Mays v. Prewett

98 Tenn. 474 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1897

Hadly v. Latimer, 3 Yer., 537 ; Coffee v. Buffin, 4 Cold., 514 ; Seat v. McWhirter, 93 Tenn., 569 . … Gass v. Mason, 4 Sneed, 506 ; Craddock v. Cabinoss, 1 Swan, 481 ; Parrott v. Parrott, 1 Heis., 687; Knox v. Haralson, 2 Tenn. Ch., 236.

DeLiquero v. Munson

58 Tenn. 15 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1872

To board for self, wife and servant, from May 1st to date, $30.50. “ You will please pay the above amount to Messrs. De-Liquero & Crozier, and oblige W. J. Martin.” … In such case notice of the assignment is all that is necessary to perfect the plaintiff’s right: Clodfelter v. Cox, 1 Sneed, 330 .

Ricky Harris v. State of Tennessee

Tennessee Supreme Court · Jan 14, 2010

Harris v. State, 102 S.W.3d 587, 591 (Tenn. 2003). … Mixon v. State, 983 S.W.2d 661, 670 (Tenn. 1999). Whether a claim is barred by an applicable statute of limitations is a question of law, which we review de novo. Brown v.

Lacy & McGhee v. Sugarman

59 Tenn. 354 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1873

In the still later case of Maddox v. … In the case of Rhodes v.

Lacy & McGhee v. Sugarman

59 Tenn. 354 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1873

In the still later case of Maddox v. … In the case of Rhodes v.

Nashville & American Trust Co. v. Baxter

171 Tenn. 494 · Tennessee Supreme Court · May 22, 1937

E., 178 ; Willmott v. Jenkins, 1 Beav., 401; Kendall v. Russell, 3 Sim., 424. … Pomeroy is quoted in Spurlock v. Brown, 91 Tenn. [241, at] page 260, 18 S.

Linda Beard v. James William Branson

528 S.W.3d 487 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Aug 30, 2017

.”); Kline, 69 S.W.3d at 207 (noting that the wrongful death statutes “prescribe the priority of those who may assert the action on behalf of the decedent and any other beneficiaries”); Brown v. … Ct. 1967); Brown v. Coe, 616 S.E.2d 705, 707-08 (S.C. 2005). We need not address in this opinion whether Mr. Hartley was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law when he filed this lawsuit.

Pocahontas Fuel Co. v. Orick

218 Tenn. 514 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Jun 3, 1966

[of New York] v. National Labor Relations Board, 305 U.S. 197 , 59 S.Ct. 206, 217 , 83 L.Ed. 126, 127, 140 ; Cude v. … Supply Co. v.

Scheibler v. Mundinger

86 Tenn. 674 · Tennessee Supreme Court · May 29, 1888

This is illustrated by a series of cases running through Galt v. Dibbrell, 10 Yer., 146 , 152; Barker v. Wheelip, 5 Hum., 329 ; Overton v. Holinshade, 5 Heis., 686, and culminating in Atwood v . Brown, 1 Tenn. Leg. … In Hill v.

State Ex Rel. Swann v. Pack

527 S.W.2d 99 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Sep 8, 1975

. *109 In West Virginia State Board of Education v. … In Thomas v.