Mayes v. LeMonte

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• same, quoting Dixon v. Lobenstein , 175 Tenn. 105 , 132 S.W.2d 215 , 216 (Tenn. 1939)
• “We believe this case is governed by general negligence principles, not that aspect of dog bite law which imposes liability on an owner where there are “injuries resulting from known vicious tendencies or propensities.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).