abuse of discretion standard in Tennessee

2026Accordingly, this Court reviews a trial court’s sentencing determinations under “an abuse of discretion standard of review, granting a presumption of reasonableness to within-range sentencing decisions that reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act.” Id. at 707 .

2026This court reviews challenges to the manner of service of a sentence within the appropriate sentence range “under an abuse of discretion standard with a ‘presumption of reasonableness.’” State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012).

2026This abuse of discretion standard of review, accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness, also applies to a trial court’s decision regarding “probation or any other alternative sentence.” State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012). -6- Pursuant to the 2005 amendments to the sentencing act, a trial court must consider the following when determining whether to impose an alternative sentence: (1) The evidence, if any, received at the trial and the sentencing hearing; (2) The presentence report; (3) The principles of sentencing and arguments as to sentencing alternatives; (4) The natu

2026The Tennessee Supreme Court has further held “that the abuse of discretion standard, accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness, applies to within-range sentences that reflect a decision based upon the purposes and principles of sentencing, including the questions related to probation or any other alternative sentence.” State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-279 (Tenn. 2012) (emphasis added).

2026“Under the abuse of discretion standard, a trial court’s ruling ‘will be upheld so long as reasonable minds can disagree as to propriety of the decision made.’” Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82, 85 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Scott, 33 S.W.3d 746, 752 (Tenn. 2000); State v. Gilliland, 22 S.W.3d 266, 273 (Tenn. 2000)).

2026Id.; Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82, 85 (Tenn. 2001) (“Under the abuse of discretion standard, a trial court’s ruling ‘will be upheld so long as reasonable minds can disagree as to propriety of the decision made.’” (quoting State v. Scott, 33 S.W.3d 746, 752 (Tenn. 2000))).

2026Although our supreme court has not yet applied the standard of review first promulgated in State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012)—abuse of discretion coupled with a presumption of reasonableness—to misdemeanor sentencing decisions, it has stated, “The abuse of discretion standard, accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness, is the appropriate standard of appellate review for all sentencing decisions.” State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 864 (Tenn. 2013).

2025Our supreme court has stated that “the abuse of discretion standard of appellate review accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness applies to all sentencing decisions.” State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 324 (Tenn. 2014) (citing State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 864 (Tenn. 2013)).

2026“Under the abuse of discretion standard, a trial court’s ruling ‘will be upheld so long as reasonable minds can disagree as to propriety of the decision made.’” Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82, 85 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Scott, 33 S.W.3d 746, 752 (Tenn. 2000); State v. Gilliland, 22 S.W.3d 266, 273 (Tenn. 2000)).

2026Id.; Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82, 85 (Tenn. 2001) (“Under the abuse of discretion standard, a trial court’s ruling ‘will be upheld so long as reasonable minds can disagree as to propriety of the decision made.’” (quoting State v. Scott, 33 S.W.3d 746, 752 (Tenn. 2000))).

2025We review a trial court’s evidentiary decisions under an abuse of discretion standard and will reverse the decision only if “the court applied an incorrect legal standard, or reached a decision which is against logic or reasoning” and admission or exclusion of the evidence “caused an injustice to the party complaining.” State v. Gilliland, 22 S.W.3d 266, 270 (Tenn. 2000) (quoting State v. Shirley, 6 S.W.3d 243, 247 (Tenn. 1999)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2025“The abuse of discretion standard does not permit the appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.” Id. (citing Myint v. Allstate Ins.

2018The Tennessee Supreme Court announced that “sentences imposed by the trial court within the appropriate statutory range are to be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard with a ‘presumption of reasonableness.’” A finding of abuse of discretion “‘reflects that the trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual circumstances and relevant legal principles involved in a particular case.’” State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tenn. 1999)).

2013The Tennessee Supreme Court announced that “sentences imposed by the trial court within the appropriate statutory range are to be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard with a ‘presumption of reasonableness.’” Id. at 708 ; State v. Christine Caudle, __ S.W.3d __, No. M2010-01172- SC-R11-CD, 2012 WL 5907374, at *5 (Tenn. Nov. 27, 2012) (explicitly applying the same standard to questions related to probation or any other alternative sentence). 8 A finding of abuse of discretion “‘reflects that the trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual circumst

2026“The abuse of discretion standard does not permit the appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.” Id. (citing Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82, 85 (Tenn. 2001)).

2026The abuse of discretion standard of review “reflects an awareness that the decision being reviewed involved a choice among several acceptable alternatives.” Harmon v. Hickman Cmty. Healthcare Servs., Inc., 594 S.W.3d 297 , 305 (Tenn. 2020) (quoting Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 524 (Tenn. 2010)).

2018The Tennessee Supreme Court announced that “sentences imposed by the trial court within the appropriate statutory range are to be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard with a ‘presumption of reasonableness.’” A finding of abuse of discretion “‘reflects that the trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual circumstances and relevant legal principles involved in a particular case.’” State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tenn. 1999)).

2013The Tennessee Supreme Court announced that “sentences imposed by the trial court within the appropriate statutory range are to be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard with a ‘presumption of reasonableness.’” Id. at 708 ; State v. Christine Caudle, __ S.W.3d __, No. M2010-01172- SC-R11-CD, 2012 WL 5907374, at *5 (Tenn. Nov. 27, 2012) (explicitly applying the same standard to questions related to probation or any other alternative sentence). 8 A finding of abuse of discretion “‘reflects that the trial court’s logic and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual circumst

2020State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82-83 (Tenn. 1991) (applying the probation revocation procedures and principles contained in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-311 to the revocation of a community corrections placement based upon “the similar nature of a community corrections sentence and a sentence of probation”); see also State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 864 (Tenn. 2013) (holding that an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness applies to all sentencing decisions).

2020State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82-83 (Tenn. 1991) (applying the probation revocation procedures and principles contained in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-311 to the revocation of a community corrections placement based upon “the similar nature of a community corrections sentence and a sentence of probation”); see also State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 864 (Tenn. 2013) (holding that an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness applies to all sentencing decisions).

2026“Under the abuse of discretion standard, a trial court’s ruling ‘will be upheld so long as reasonable minds can disagree as to propriety of the decision made.’” Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82, 85 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Scott, 33 S.W.3d 746, 752 (Tenn. 2000); State v. Gilliland, 22 S.W.3d 266, 273 (Tenn. 2000)).

2026“Under the abuse of discretion standard, a trial court’s ruling ‘will be upheld so long as reasonable minds can disagree as to propriety of the decision made.’” Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82, 85 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Scott, 33 S.W.3d 746, 752 (Tenn. 2000); State v. Gilliland, 22 S.W.3d 266, 273 (Tenn. 2000)).

2022A trial court’s decision regarding the admission of Rule 404(b) evidence will be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard; however, “the decision of the trial court should be afforded no deference unless there has been substantial compliance with the procedural requirements of the Rule.” State v. DuBose, 953 S.W.2d 649, 652 (Tenn. 1997). - 27 - Generally, “[o]nly in an exceptional case will another crime, wrong, or bad act be relevant to an issue other than the accused’s character.

2020A trial court’s decision regarding the admission of Rule 404(b) evidence will be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard; however, “the decision of the trial court should be afforded no deference unless there has been substantial compliance with the procedural requirements of the Rule.” State v. DuBose, 953 S.W.2d 649, 652 (Tenn. 1997).

2025“The abuse of discretion standard of review does not, however, immunize a lower court’s decision from any meaningful appellate scrutiny.” Beecher, 312 S.W.3d at 524 (citing Boyd v. Comdata Network, Inc., 88 S.W.3d 203, 211 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002)).

2024STANDARD OF REVIEW “Appellate courts review a trial court’s decision regarding attorney-client privilege using the abuse of discretion standard.” Pagliara v. Pagliara, 614 S.W.3d 85 , 89 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2020) (citing Boyd v. Comdata Network, Inc., 88 S.W.3d 203, 211 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002)).

2018“The abuse of discretion standard of review envisions a less rigorous review of the lower court’s decision and a decreased likelihood that the decision will be reversed on appeal.” Id. (citing Beard v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 288 S.W.3d 838, 860 (Tenn. 2009); State ex rel.

2018“The abuse of discretion standard of review envisions a less rigorous review of the lower court’s decision and a decreased likelihood that the decision will be reversed on appeal,” and “[i]t reflects an awareness that the decision being reviewed involved a choice among several acceptable alternatives.” Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 524 (citing Beard v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 288 S.W.3d 838, 860 (Tenn. 2009); State ex rel.

2025The abuse of discretion standard requires this Court to consider whether the trial court “applied an incorrect legal standard or reached a decision which is against logic or reasoning that caused an injustice to the party complaining.” Id.

2023“The abuse of discretion standard does not permit an appellate court to merely substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.” Id.

2025“In general, we review a trial court’s ruling on a request for relief from a final judgment under Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure . . . pursuant to the abuse of discretion standard.” Turner v. Turner, 473 S.W.3d 257, 268 (Tenn. 2015) (citing Discover Bank v. Morgan, 363 S.W.3d 479, 487 (Tenn. 2012)).

2024Analysis A. Trustee’s Rule 60.02 Motion i. “In general, we review a trial court’s ruling on a request for relief from a final judgment under Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure . . . pursuant to the abuse of discretion standard.” Turner v. Turner, 473 S.W.3d 257, 268 (Tenn. 2015) (citing Discover Bank v. Morgan, 363 S.W.3d 479, 487 (Tenn. 2012)).

2026The abuse of discretion standard applies to all sentencing decisions, State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 324 (Tenn. 2014), including “questions related to probation or any other alternative sentence,” State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012).

2026See State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 324 (Tenn. 2014) (“Bise and its progeny establish that the abuse of discretion standard of appellate review accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness applies to all sentencing decisions.”); State v. Hampton, No. W2018-00623-CCA-R3-CD, 2019 WL 1167807 , at *12 (Tenn. Crim.

2025However, as we have previously explained, “[d]etermining whether a parent is willfully and voluntarily underemployed or unemployed are questions of fact that require careful considerations of all the attendant circumstances.” Cain-Swope v. Swope, 523 S.W.3d 79, 91 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016) (citing Richardson v. Spanos, 189 S.W.3d 720, 726 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005)).

2024Williams v. Woods, 530 S.W.3d 129, 136 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017). -4- Further, “‘ decisions regarding child support must be made within the strictures of the Child Support Guidelines.’” Id. (quoting Richardson v. Spanos, 189 S.W.3d 720, 725 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005)).

2019See In re M.L.D., 182 S.W.3d at 895 (citing Stovall v. Clarke, 113 S.W.3d 715, 721 (Tenn. 2003) (“We review a trial court’s determination of whether to grant a Rule 59.04 motion to alter or amend a judgment under an abuse of discretion standard.”)); Loeffler v. Kjellgren, 884 S.W.2d 463, 468 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994) (citing Mize v. Skeen, 63 Tenn. App. 37 , 42–43, 468 S.W.2d 733, 736 (Tenn. 1971) (“A trial court is given wide latitude in granting a motion for new trial, and a reviewing court will not overturn such a decision unless there has been an abuse of discretion.”)).

2015“A trial court‟s determination of whether to grant a Rule 59.04 motion to alter or amend a judgment is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” Linkous v. Lane, 276 S.W.3d 917, 924 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Stovall v. Clarke, 113 S.W.3d 715, 721 (Tenn. 2003)).

2025The abuse of discretion standard does not allow this court to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court, Williams v. Baptist Mem’l Hosp., 193 S.W.3d 545, 551 (Tenn. 2006); Myint v. Allstate Ins.

2022The abuse of discretion standard does not allow the appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court, Williams v. Baptist Mem’l Hosp., 193 S.W.3d 545, 551 (Tenn. 2006); Myint v. Allstate Ins.

2024Standard of Appellate Review “We review a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of prior convictions for impeachment purposes under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Waller, 118 S.W.3d 368, 371 (Tenn. 2003).

2013See State v. Waller, 118 S.W.3d 368, 371 (Tenn. 2003) (applying an abuse of discretion standard of review to evidentiary rulings regarding prior convictions).

2026“Indeed, when reviewing a discretionary decision by the trial court, the ‘appellate courts should begin with the presumption that the decision is correct and should review the evidence in the light most favorable to the decision.’” Henderson v. SAIA, Inc., 318 S.W.3d 328, 335 (Tenn. 2010) (quoting Overstreet v. Shoney’s, Inc., 4 S.W.3d 694, 709 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999)).

2026“Indeed, when reviewing a discretionary decision by the trial court, the ‘appellate courts should begin with the presumption that the -4- decision is correct and should review the evidence in the light most favorable to the decision.’” Henderson v. SAIA, Inc., 318 S.W.3d 328, 335 (Tenn. 2010) (quoting Overstreet v. Shoney’s, Inc., 4 S.W.3d 694, 709 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999)).

2010“Generally stated, the abuse of discretion standard does not authorize an appellate court to merely substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.” In re Estate of Ladd, 247 S.W.3d at 645 (citing Myint, 970 S.W.2d at 927 ).

2009“Generally stated, the abuse of discretion standard does not authorize an appellate court to merely substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.” In re Estate of Ladd, 247 S.W.3d at 645 (citing Myint, 970 S.W.2d at 927 ).

2021“Generally, the admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Mercer v. Vanderbilt Univ., Inc., 134 S.W.3d 121, 131 (Tenn. 2004); see generally -9- Goodwin v. Hanebis, M2017-01689-COA-R3-CV, 2018 WL 4145889 , at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2018) (reviewing the court’s exclusion of medical records using the abuse of discretion standard of review).

2020Holding, Inc., 473 S.W.3d 734, 742 (Tenn. 2015) (citing Mercer v. Vanderbilt Univ., Inc., 134 S.W.3d 121, 133 (Tenn. 2004)); see also Funk v. Scripps Media, Inc., 570 S.W.3d 205 , 1 Rule 34A.02 provides that “Rule 37 sanctions may be imposed upon a party or an agent of a party who discards, destroys, mutilates, alters, or conceals evidence.” 2 Rule 37.02(C) includes dismissal of an action as one of several available discovery sanctions if a party fails to provide or permit discovery. -2- 210 (Tenn. 2019) (“Trial court decisions on pretrial discovery disputes are reviewed using an abuse of disc

2024This court reviews a trial court’s decisions concerning the admissibility of expert evidence under an abuse of discretion standard and will reverse a decision only “‘when the trial court applied incorrect legal standards, reached an illogical conclusion, based its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employed reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.’” State v. Parker, 350 S.W.3d 883, 897 (Tenn. 2011) (quoting State v. Banks, 271 S.W.3d 90, 116 (Tenn. 2008)).

2022This court reviews a trial court’s decisions concerning the admissibility of expert evidence under an abuse of discretion standard, and will reverse a decision only “‘when the trial court applied incorrect legal standards, reached an illogical conclusion, based its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employed reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.’” State v. Parker, 350 S.W.3d 883, 897 (Tenn. 2011) (quoting State v. Banks, 271 S.W.3d 90, 116 (Tenn. 2008)).

2015State v. Stubblefield, 953 S.W.2d 223, 226 (Tenn. Crim.

2010State v. Stubblefield, 953 S.W.2d 223, 226 (Tenn. Crim.

2024Appellate courts review a trial court’s grant or denial of an alternative sentence under an abuse of discretion standard, with “a presumption of reasonableness [] to within- range sentences that reflect a decision based upon the purposes and principles of sentencing[.]” State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012). “[A] trial court’s decision to grant or deny probation will not be invalidated unless the trial court wholly departed from the relevant statutory considerations in reaching its determination.” State v. Sihapanya, 516 S.W.3d 473, 476 (Tenn. 2014).

2020State v. Sihapanya, 516 S.W.3d 473, 475 (Tenn. 2014) (“The abuse of discretion standard does not permit an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.”) (order) (per curiam).

2024The abuse of discretion standard “‘reflects an awareness that the decision being reviewed involved a choice among several acceptable alternatives,’” and therefore “‘envisions a less rigorous review of the lower court’s decision and a decreased likelihood that the decision will be reversed on appeal.’” Henderson v. SAIA, Inc., 318 S.W.3d 328, 335 (Tenn. 2010) (quoting Lee Medical, Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 524 (Tenn. 2010)).

2024The abuse of discretion standard “‘reflects an awareness that the decision being reviewed involved a choice among several acceptable alternatives,’” and therefore “‘envisions a less rigorous review of the lower court’s decision and a decreased likelihood that the decision will be reversed on appeal.’” Henderson v. SAIA, Inc., 318 S.W.3d 328, 335 (Tenn. 2010) (quoting Lee Medical, Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 524 (Tenn. 2010)).

2023The abuse of discretion standard “does not permit an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.” Id.

2023Moreover, pursuant to the abuse of discretion standard, “the appellate court should presume the [trial court’s] decision is correct and should review the evidence in the light most favorable to the decision.” Id. at 105-06 .

2018Under the abuse of discretion standard, the appellate court’s role is not to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court, but rather to presume that the trial court’s decision is correct and to review the evidence “in the light most favorable to the decision.” Id. at 105-06 (citing Wright, 337 S.W.3d at 176 ).

2018Under the abuse of discretion standard, the appellate court’s role is not to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court, but rather to presume that the trial court’s decision is correct and to review the evidence “in the light most favorable to the decision.” Id. at 105-06 (citing Wright, 337 S.W.3d at 176 ).