Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 866 SW2D 944 - Five Star Express, Inc. v. Davis

Five Star Express, Inc. v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
January 2013
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently January 2013

8 state decisions

60199320002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Watts v. Putnam County · Davis v. Davis · Mayor of Nashville v. Webb · METROPOLITAN GOV. OF NASHVILLE & DAVIDSON CO. v. Poe · Metropolitan Government of Nashville v. Poe

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “In view of the foregoing, it is clear that the Chambers rationale, which has consistently undergirded this Court’s opinions on this issue for over sixty years, is no longer viable. While the principle of stare decisis demands that our prior cases not be overruled in an arbitrary or cavalier manner, that principle does not demand adherence to decisions that have become obsolete because of changes in the law or other legitimate considerations. Therefore, we now hold that venue in worker’s compensation actions is to be determined solely by the worker’s compensation venue statute— § 50-6-225(c) (1) — and any other authority indicating otherwise is hereby expressly overruled.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Therefore, it would seem that the workers’ compensation venue statute would fit squarely into this exception [“unless venue is otherwise expressly provided for”] to the general rule [in Tenn.Code Ann. § 2CMl-101(a) ] regarding venue of transitory actions. This conclusion is buttressed by the basic rule of statutory construction which provides that a general statute concerning a subject must defer to a more specific statute concerning the same subject. See Watts v. Putnam County, 525 S.W.2d 488 (Tenn.1975); Koella v. State ex rel. Moffett, 218 Tenn. 629 , 405 S.W.2d 184 (1966).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “There are two types of actions for purposes of venue. A transitory action is one in which the injury occurred to a subject not having an immovable location; therefore a transitory action could have occurred anywhere. Typical examples of transitory actions are actions sounding in tort and contract. On the other hand, a local action is an action in which the injury occurred to an immovable object; the classic example is an action involving injury to real property. Local actions must be brought in the county in which the property is located.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.