Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
35 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2024 4 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re MJBgreen2 sentences2024App. P. 13(d); In re M.J.B., 140 S.W.3d 643, 654 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). 2022App. P. 13(d); In re M.J.B., 140 S.W.3d 643, 654 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). | 13 | 13 |
Spencer v. Towson Moving & Storage, Inc.green2 sentences2001Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(2) (1999); Spencer v. Towson Moving and Storage Inc., 922 S.W.2d 508, 509 (Tenn.1996). 2001TenmCode Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(2) (1999); Spencer v. Towson Moving and Storage Inc., 922 S.W.2d 508, 509 (Tenn.1996). | 2 | 2 |
Hass v. Knightongreen2 sentences2002Hass v Knighton, 676 S.W. 2d 554, 555 (Tenn. 1984). 1998Hass v. Knighton, 676 S.W.2d 554 (Tenn. 1984). | 1 | 3 |
Musselman v. Acuffgreen2 sentences1998The court in Musselman v. Acuff, 826 S.W.2d 920 (Tenn. App. 1991), states: The scope of review in custody cases is de novo upon the record accompanied by a presumption of correctness, unless the preponderance of evidence is otherwise. 1995E.g., Musselman v. Acuff, 826 S.W.2d 920, 922 (Tenn. App. 1991). | 1 | 2 |
Dobson v. Stategreen1 sentence2021Id. (citing Beare Co. v. State, 814 S.W.2d 715, 717 (Tenn. 1991); Dobson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 324, 328-29 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999); Sanders v. State, 783 S.W.2d 948, 951 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989)). | 1 | 1 |
Beare Co. v. Stategreen1 sentence2021Id. (citing Beare Co. v. State, 814 S.W.2d 715, 717 (Tenn. 1991); Dobson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 324, 328-29 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999); Sanders v. State, 783 S.W.2d 948, 951 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989)). | 1 | 1 |
Sanders v. Stategreen1 sentence2021Id. (citing Beare Co. v. State, 814 S.W.2d 715, 717 (Tenn. 1991); Dobson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 324, 328-29 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999); Sanders v. State, 783 S.W.2d 948, 951 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989)). | 1 | 1 |
Kaplan v. Bugallagreen1 sentence2020Because this was a bench trial, “our review of the trial court’s findings of fact is de novo upon the record accompanied by a presumption of correctness, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.” Kaplan v. Bugalla, 188 S.W.3d 632, 635 (Tenn. 2006); see Tenn. R. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Valentinegreen1 sentence2016P. 13(d): “We review all issues of law de novo upon the record with no presumption of 'correctness.” In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539, 546 (Tenn.2002) (citing Union Carbide Corp. v. Huddleston, 854 S.W.2d 87, 91 (Tenn.1993)). | 1 | 1 |
Union Carbide Corp. v. Huddlestongreen1 sentence2016P. 13(d): “We review all issues of law de novo upon the record with no presumption of 'correctness.” In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539, 546 (Tenn.2002) (citing Union Carbide Corp. v. Huddleston, 854 S.W.2d 87, 91 (Tenn.1993)). | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Houston County Board of Educationgreen1 sentence2016Bd. of Educ., 358 S.W.3d 612, 615 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (citing Tenn. R. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marrgreen1 sentence2012In re Angela -8- E., 303 S.W.3d at 251 (citing In re Marr, 194 S.W.3d 490, 498 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005)). -9- The Tennessee Supreme Court has explained the standard this court uses to review a trial court’s decision in a termination of parental rights case: We review the trial court’s findings of fact de novo upon the record accompanied by a presumption of correctness unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. | 1 | 1 |
In Re HLFgreen1 sentence2011P. 13(d); In re H.L.F., 297 S.W.3d at 233. | 1 | 1 |
Campbell v. Florida Steel Corp.green1 sentence2005Campbell v. Florida Steel Corp., 919 S.W.2d 26, 35 (Tenn. 1996); Tenn. R. | 1 | 1 |
Goodman v. Goodmangreen1 sentence2002As the Supreme Court has explained, however, “the Trial Court has wide discretion in awarding alimony, and appellate review of the Trial Court’s findings of fact is de novo upon the record accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the findings.” Robertson v. Robertson, 76 S.W.3d 337, 342 (Tenn. 2001), citing Goodman v. Goodman, 8 S.W.3d 289, 293 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (“As a general matter, we are disinclined to alter a trial court’s spousal support decision unless the court manifestly abused its discretion.”). -4- Finally, the husband argues the Trial Court was required to divide the | 1 | 1 |
Robertson v. Robertsongreen1 sentence2002As the Supreme Court has explained, however, “the Trial Court has wide discretion in awarding alimony, and appellate review of the Trial Court’s findings of fact is de novo upon the record accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the findings.” Robertson v. Robertson, 76 S.W.3d 337, 342 (Tenn. 2001), citing Goodman v. Goodman, 8 S.W.3d 289, 293 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (“As a general matter, we are disinclined to alter a trial court’s spousal support decision unless the court manifestly abused its discretion.”). -4- Finally, the husband argues the Trial Court was required to divide the | 1 | 1 |
Alexander v. Inmangreen1 sentence2001See, Alexander v. Inman, 974 S.W.2d 689 (Tenn. 1998). | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Sterling Last Corp.green1 sentence1999Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225 (e)(2)(Supp.l997); Jones v. Sterling Last Corp., 962 S.W.2d 469, 471 (Tenn.1998). | 1 | 1 |
Lawson v. Lear Seating Corp.green1 sentence1998Tenn. Code Ann. § 50—6—225(e)(2) (Supp.1997); Lawson v. Lear Seating Corp., 944 S.W.2d 340, 341 (Tenn.1997). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Angela E.
green
2 sentences2012In re Angela -8- E., 303 S.W.3d at 251 (citing In re Marr, 194 S.W.3d 490, 498 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005)). -9- The Tennessee Supreme Court has explained the standard this court uses to review a trial court’s decision in a termination of parental rights case: We review the trial court’s findings of fact de novo upon the record accompanied by a presumption of correctness unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. 2010That standard was stated in In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. 2010) as follows: Where, as here, the trial court sits without a jury, we review findings of facts de novo upon the record accompanied by a presumption of correctness unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. | 2 | 2010–2012 |
Bowman v. State
green
1 sentence2021Id. (citing Beare Co. v. State, 814 S.W.2d 715, 717 (Tenn. 1991); Dobson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 324, 328-29 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999); Sanders v. State, 783 S.W.2d 948, 951 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989)). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Crabtree v. Crabtree
green
1 sentence2002Crabtree, 16 S.W.3d at 360 (citing Tenn. R.App. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Brooks v. Brooks
green
1 sentence2002Tenn.R.App.P. 13 (d); Rooks v. Rooks, 992 S.W.2d 403, 404 , (Tenn.1999). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Nichols v. Nichols
green
1 sentence1993Nichols v. Nichols, Tenn.1990, 792 S.W.2d 713 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Alley v. Consolidation Coal Co.
green
1 sentence1989Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e) (1988) and Alley v. Consolidated Coal Co., 699 S.W.2d 147 (Tenn.1985). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.