Case Citator › McIntyre v. Balentine

McIntyre v. Balentine

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of Tennessee
Citation
833 S.W.2d 52
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
28 of 28
Citing cases (total)
28
Treatment dates
1996
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. McIntyre v. Balentine remains controlling on Tennessee's modified comparative-fault rule, but its broad statement that joint and several liability was obsolete is limited in the circumstance listed below. All 28 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

A federal court's early refusal to extend comparative fault to strict products liability did not endure: the Tennessee Supreme Court later held in Whitehead v. Toyota Motor Corp. that comparative negligence applies to those claims. The Mississippi Supreme Court's choice of Mississippi law in Smith v. Church Mutual Insurance Co. did not change Tennessee law.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

28 later cases cite McIntyre v. Balentine; 28 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on McIntyre v. Balentine?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Tennessee Supreme Court retained joint and several liability for manufacturers and sellers in a product's distribution chain when they are strictly liable, an exception to McIntyre's general statement that the doctrine was obsolete.

    Owens v. Truckstops of America · Supreme Court of Tennessee · filed

    This case is the “appropriate controversy,” McIntyre, 833 S.W.2d at 60, for the Court to address “the advisability of retaining joint and several liability,” id., for defendants in the chain of distribution of a product who are liable upon a theory of strict liability in tort. ... Consequently, joint and several liability against parties in the chain of distribution of a product is essential to the theory of strict products liability.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads McIntyre v. Balentine and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace