Case law

Overton v. Rainbo Baking Co. of Johnson City, Inc.

239 F. Supp. 800 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Nov 6, 1964

salaries and wages in Tennessee; that its chief officers reside and maintain their offices in Tennessee; that all its books and records, except its original stock ledger, are kept in Tennessee; that quarterly meetings of its board … Kelly v. United States Steel Corp., C.A. 3rd (1960), 284 F.2d 850 and Continental Coal Corp. v. Roszelle Bros., supra. Thus, there is no diversity of citizenship between this plaintiff and this defendant.

Williams v. Bridgestone Tire Co.

84 F.R.D. 19 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Feb 23, 1979

Robertson v. Railroad Labor Board (1925), 268 U.S. 619 , 45 S.Ct. 621 , 69 L.Ed. 1119 . Thus, the dismissed defendant has an unqualified right to have this order, granting its motion to dismiss as to it, granted. … See Pickens v. Hess, supra, and Capital Dredge & Dock Corp. v. Midwest Dredging Co., C.A. 6th (1978), 573 F.2d 377 .

Griffin v. Rose

546 F. Supp. 932 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Oct 2, 1981

In Stone v. … The Tennessee Supreme Court went on to hold that these factors constitute grounds for “a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that the individual [was] involved in criminal activity,” quoting Brown v.

Deal Ex Rel. Deal v. Hamilton County Dept. of Educ.

259 F. Supp. 2d 687 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Mar 4, 2003

C. v. Knox County Schools, 315 F.3d 688, 689 (6th Cir.2003); Burilovich v. Board of Educ. of Lincoln, 208 F.3d 560 , 565 (6th Cir.2000). … Knable, 238 F.3d at 768 ; Dong v. Board of Educ. of Rochester Community Schools, 197 F.3d 793 , 799-800 (6th Cir.1999); Renner v. Board of Educ. of Pub.

Rineholt v. Astrue

617 F. Supp. 2d 733 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Apr 21, 2009

In Warner v. … Bailey v. Apfel, 230 F.3d 1063, 1065-66 (8th Cir.2000). For example, in Brown v.

United States v. Park Motors, Inc.

107 F. Supp. 168 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Aug 6, 1952

In the Waite case the Court said, “No doubt it is true that this Court cannot displace the judgment of the board (Tea Board) in any matter within its jurisdiction, but it is equally true that the board cannot enlarge the … Marcus v.

Stefanovic v. University of Tennessee

935 F. Supp. 944 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Apr 8, 1996

v. … See Bivens v.

Britton v. United States

566 F. Supp. 730 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Nov 16, 1981

Howard v. United States, C.A.8th (1952), 199 F.2d 276, 278 [2]; accord: Lafever v. … Richards v.

Crouch v. The University of Tennessee

District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Nov 13, 2024

See Gibson v. R.G. … Brown v. Matauszak, 415 F. App’x 608, 613 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950). Here, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint offers no facts to support the conclusory claim that he was discriminated against.

Mahoney v. United States

220 F. Supp. 823 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Jul 16, 1963

(Mahoney v. United States, D. C., 216 F.Supp. 523 .) … United States v. Hull, 195 F.2d 64, 67 (C.A. 1); Hopson v. United States, 136 F.Supp. 804 (D.C.W.D.Ark.); Pierce v. United States, D.C., 142 F.Supp. 721 , affirmed in 6 Cir., 235 F.2d 466 .

Yost v. Wilhoit

District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Nov 8, 2021

Brown v. Chapman, 814 F.3d 447, 457 (6th Cir. 2016). … Brown v. Christian Bros. Univ., 428 S.W.3d 38, 54 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Coffee v. Peterbilt of Nashville, Inc., 795 S.W.2d 656, 659 (Tenn. 1990)).

Eastman Kodak Co. v. E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.

298 F. Supp. 718 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Feb 11, 1969

As to issues neither presented nor decided by the Board of Patent Interferences, plaintiff is only required to prove its case by a preponderance of evidence. TVA v. … In Clark v.

Dodd v. City of Chattanooga

215 F. Supp. 3d 608 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Mar 15, 2016

Cohen v. Cohen, 937 S.W.2d 823, 826 (Tenn. 1996) (emphasis added). See also Miles v. Tennessee Consol. Ret. … Faust v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville, 206 S.W.3d 475, 498 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006); see also Atkins v.

Reed v. Kiran Transport, LLC

District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Aug 11, 2023

(quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1180 (6th Cir. 1983)). Accordingly, "[c]ourts have long recognized . . . a 'strong presumption in favor of openness' as to court records." Id. … See Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1179. 825 F.3d at 305 (emphasis added); see also Rudd Equip. Co. v.

Green v. White

580 F. Supp. 41 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Feb 9, 1984

Haynes Brown testified that he recommended retaining 6 of the 21 Osborne employees. County Executive Howard T. Garland also made him a list of those worth retaining. … See McBee v. Jim Hogg County, Texas, 703 F.2d 834 (5th Cir.1983) which creates a personal loyalty exception to Elrod v. Bums in the small-county situation.

Donovan v. Local 519, International Brotherhood of Teamsters

570 F. Supp. 14 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Aug 19, 1983

The General Executive Board of the International Union denied Howard’s final appeal by letter dated January 31,1983. … In Hodgson v.

McNabb v. Tennessee Valley Authority

754 F. Supp. 118 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Jan 3, 1990

Daly v. Costle, 661 F.2d 959 (D.C.C.1981); Solar v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 600 F.Supp. 535 (S.D.Fla.1984); McClary v. United States, 7 Cl.Ct. 160 (1984); Baskin v. … In Patterson v.

United States v. Hartsell

277 F. Supp. 993 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Dec 8, 1967

The Supreme Court announced its hopefully awaited opinion in Mempa v. Rhay and Walking v. Washington State Board of Prison Terms and Paroles on November 13, 1967. Therein, Mr. … In particular, Townsend v.

Williams v. Campbell Chrysler-Dodge, Inc.

96 F.R.D. 547 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Mar 26, 1982

Hutton & Company v. Brown, D.C.Tex. (1969), 305 F.Supp. 371, 383 [14] (“Affidavits * * *. should be restricted to the statement of fact within the personal knowledge of the affiant.”) … Usery v.

Holt v. Southern Railway Co.

320 F. Supp. 864 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Aug 26, 1970

Holt’s grievance would have been barred, unless he had instituted proceedings before the appropriate division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board or a system, group or regional board, agreed upon by the union and railway … DaFoe v. Starek, C.A.Tenn. (1929), 9 Tenn.App. 668, 673 [2], certiorari denied (1929); Carr v. American Insurance Company, D.C. *870 Tenn. (1957), 152 F.Supp. 700, 701 ; accord: Carbon Black Export, Inc. v.