phase doctrine (Tennessee) · Go Syfert
← Tennessee issues

phase doctrine in Tennessee

5 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1911–2019 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Tennessee courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Gaither Corporation v. Skinnergreen
nc · 1955 · cited in 2 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2006–2019
2 sentences

2019The bar of the judgment in such cases extends not only to matters actually determined, but also to other matters which in the exercise of due diligence could have been presented for determination in the prior action.” Gerber, 219 S.W.3d at 918 (quoting Gaither Corp. v. Skinner, 241 N.C. 532 , 85 S.E.2d 909, 911 (1955)).

2019The bar of the judgment in such cases extends not only to matters actually determined, but also to other matters which in the exercise of due diligence could have been presented for determination in the prior action.” Gerber, 219 S.W.3d at 918 (quoting Gaither Corp. v. Skinner, 241 N.C. 532 , 85 S.E.2d 909, 911 (1955)).

22
In Re JACOBE M.J.green
tennctapp · 2013 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
1 sentence

2018A. Yes. 15 the complete care of Father, as Father “has not been a 24/7 parent, aside from all of the mothers [of his other children] helping.” As we consider Father’s argument, we are mindful that in this phase of our analysis, “[t]he child’s best interests must be viewed from the child’s, rather than the parent’s, perspective.” White v. Moody, 171 S.W.3d 187, 194 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). “[W]hen the interests of the parent and the child conflict, courts are to resolve the conflict in favor of the rights and best interest of the child.” In re Jacobe M.J., 434 S.W.3d 565, 573 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013

11
White v. Moodygreen
tennctapp · 2004 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
1 sentence

2018A. Yes. 15 the complete care of Father, as Father “has not been a 24/7 parent, aside from all of the mothers [of his other children] helping.” As we consider Father’s argument, we are mindful that in this phase of our analysis, “[t]he child’s best interests must be viewed from the child’s, rather than the parent’s, perspective.” White v. Moody, 171 S.W.3d 187, 194 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). “[W]hen the interests of the parent and the child conflict, courts are to resolve the conflict in favor of the rights and best interest of the child.” In re Jacobe M.J., 434 S.W.3d 565, 573 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Gerber v. Holcomb green
tennctapp · 2006
1 sentence

2019The bar of the judgment in such cases extends not only to matters actually determined, but also to other matters which in the exercise of due diligence could have been presented for determination in the prior action.” Gerber, 219 S.W.3d at 918 (quoting Gaither Corp. v. Skinner, 241 N.C. 532 , 85 S.E.2d 909, 911 (1955)).

12019–2019
Ridley v. Halliday green
tenn · 1901
1 sentence

1930Though, of course, where the life tenant’s interests are adverse he cannot represent subsequent contingent interests.” And in Ridley v. Halliday, supra, the court said, in substance, (at page 613), that the doctrine of virtual representation is based upon the assumption that the living representative will look after the interest of the contingent remaindermen in posse by bringing to the attention of the court the merits of the controversy, so far as they affect such unborn remaindermen.

11930–1930
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. McGuire green
scotus · 1911
2 sentences

1911R. v. McGuire, 219 U. S., 549, 565 , 31 Sup. Ct., 259, 55 L.

1911R. v. McGuire, 219 U. S., 549, 565 , 31 Sup. Ct., 259, 55 L.

11911–1911

Where else courts name it

CA 11 (1949–2001) MI 10 (1935–2024) MO 8 (1908–1966) NY 7 (1934–2010) IA 6 (1908–1968) NC 5 (1909–2008) IL 5 (1984–2000) TN 5 (1911–2019) NJ 4 (1902–2016) NM 4 (1916–1988) WA 4 (1913–2024) AL 3 (1887–1917) OH 3 (1931–2005) MA 3 (1977–2002) PA 3 (1922–1966) FL 3 (1930–1958) GA 3 (1945–2017) OK 2 (1961–1963) NE 2 (1970–1985) TX 2 (1907–1950) HI 2 (1952–1997) SD 2 (1953–2015) MN 2 (1896–1951) AR 2 (1987–1994)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check