Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Barnes v. Ingram

5 Citing cases

  1. Sons of Confederate Veterans Nathan Bedford Forrest Camp v. City of Memphis

    No. W2017-00665-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2017)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that while the court has the duty to apply the correct law whether cited or not, the court is under no duty to apply ordinances that were not timely brought to the trial court's attention

    Because "[i]t is an elementary principle that ordinances of a city are subordinate to charter provisions[,]" Appellees argue that the Memphis City Charter provides the act of equal or greater dignity necessary to perform the renaming in this case. Wilgus v. City of Murfreesboro, 532 S.W.2d 50, 52 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1975) (citing Barnes v. Ingram, 217 Tenn. 363, 397 S.W.2d 821 (1966)). In addition, Appellees argue that the holding in Morrell is inapposite to the case-at-bar because in Morrell, the city council was required at that time by state statute to initiate annexation by ordinance.

  2. Allmand v. Pavletic

    292 S.W.3d 618 (Tenn. 2009)   Cited 92 times
    In Allmand, the Tennessee Supreme Court stated that a municipal action may be declared ultra vires because "the action was wholly outside the scope of the city's authority under its charter or a statute, or... because the action was not undertaken consistent with the mandatory provisions of its charter or a statute."

    . . ." Barnes v. Ingram, 217 Tenn. 363, 397 S.W.2d 821, 825 (1965) (quoting Marshall Bruce Co. v. City of Nashville, 109 Tenn. 495, 71 S.W. 815, 819 (1903)); see also Faust v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville Davidson County, 206 S.W.3d 475, 485 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2006) (holding a reclassification of civilian employees to be outside the authority provided by the Metropolitan Code). The rationale for these principles is well-settled in the law:

  3. City of Lebanon v. Baird

    756 S.W.2d 236 (Tenn. 1988)   Cited 54 times
    Explaining when a municipal act may be declared ultra vires under Tennessee law

    See also Wilgus v. City of Murfreesboro, 532 S.W.2d 50, 52 (Tenn. App. 1975). Moreover, "`[t]he provisions of the charter are mandatory, and must be obeyed by the city and its agents. . . .'" Barnes v. Ingram, 217 Tenn. 363, 373, 397 S.W.2d 821, 825 (1965). When a municipality fails to act within its charter or under applicable statutory authority, the action is ultra vires and void or voidable.

  4. City of Chattanooga ex rel. Lepard v. Elec. Power Bd. of Chattanooga

    No. E2015-01995-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 20, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    1988)). Furthermore, "'[t]he provisions of the charter are mandatory, and must be obeyed by the city and its agents . . . .'" Allmand, 292 S.W.3d at 625 (quoting Barnes v. Ingram, 397 S.W.2d 821, 825 (Tenn. 1965) (in turn quoting Marshall & Bruce Co. v. City of Nashville, 71 S.W. 815, 819 (Tenn. 1903))).

  5. Prof. v. Red Boiling M1999-00342-COA-R3-CV

    No. M1999-00342-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2000)   Cited 1 times

    "[T]he provisions of the charter are mandatory, and must be obeyed by the city and its agents. . . ." Barnes v. Ingram, 217 Tenn. 363, 373, 397 S.W.2d 821, 825 (1965). When a municipality fails to act within its charter or under applicable statutory authority, the action is ultra vires and void or voidable.