- Search with
- Parallel SearchEnter a full sentence between 5 and 30 words to find cases with conceptually similar sentences
- or
- Keyword SearchEnter keyword terms, accompanied by optional Boolean connectors
- ANDfraud AND damagesBoth terms in document
- ORcar OR automobileEither term in document
- NOTinfringement NOT patentTerm must not appear in document
- """due diligence"Exact match
- ()appeal AND (verdict OR judgment)Grouping terms
- *withdr*wSingle letter wildcard (withdraw, withdrew)
- !infring!Root expander (infringe, infringed, infringing)
- /ninvestor /5 diligenceTerms within n words of each other
- /sfees /s reasonableTerms within same sentence
- /padmissible /p warrantTerms within the same paragraph
Barnes v. Ingram
217 Tenn. 363 (Tenn. 1965)3 Citing cases
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 timesHolding 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.
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 times1988)). 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))).
City of Knoxville v. City of Knoxville Pension Bd.
No. E2012-00703-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2012) Cited 1 timesIn City of Knoxville v. City of Knoxville Pension Board, et al., No. E2012-00703-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 6477024, (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2012), this court addressed the issue of the City's standing pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. ยง 27-9-101 to seek certiorari review of a decision by its pension board which the city alleged exceeded the authority of the board and violated a city ordinance.
The provisions of the Charter are mandatory and must be obeyed by the City and its agents. Barnes v. Ingram, 217 Tenn. 363, S.W.2d 821, 825 (Tenn. 1965).