Legal Opinion
Riddick v. Yorkshire Insurance
Tennessee Supreme Court
Decided July 23, 1932PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice McKinney
The opinion of the Chancellor so clearly expresses our views of these causes that we adopt and make it the opinion of this Court. It is as follows:
“The purpose of the two above,suits is to recover of defendants on certain policies of fire insurance. The facts are not in controversy and have been stipulated by counsel for the respective parties. The principal question presented for determination is, whether complainants are entitled to recover of defendants the full amount of insurance named in the respective policies, aggregating $45,000, or whether they are only entitled to recover the value…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Memphis Street Railway Co. v. ByrneTennessee Supreme Court · 1907
- Wilson v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1919
- Crawford v. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1925
- Bell v. HartTennessee Supreme Court · 1920
- Thompson v. Concordia Fire Ins.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1919
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Hermitage Health and Life Insurance Co. v. CagleCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1967
- Johnson Transfer & Freight Lines, Inc. v. American Nat. Fire Ins. Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1935
- Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. McDonaldCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1938
- Price v. Allstate Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1981
- Rushing v. Tennessee Crime CommissionTennessee Supreme Court · 1938
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.