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.
23 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 2001–2020 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re MJHgreen2 sentences2019Id. 2015If the court finds that a material change in circumstances has occurred, the court must proceed to the second step of the analysis to determine whether the modification sought is in the child‟s best interest.1 In re M.J.H., 196 S.W.3d at 744. | 2 | 5 |
State v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2015“This second step of the analysis requires a determination that: „(1) reasonable minds could accept the offense as lesser-included; and (2) the evidence is legally sufficient to support a conviction for the lesser-included offense.‟” State v. Page, 184 S.W.3d 223, 228 (Tenn. 2006) (citing State v. Wilson, 92 S.W.3d 391, 394 (Tenn. 2002)). 2006The second step of this analysis requires a determination that: “(1) reasonable minds could accept the offense as lesser-included; and (2) the evidence is legally sufficient to support a conviction for the lesser-included offense.” State v. Wilson, 92 S.W.3d 391, 394 (Tenn.2002). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Burnsgreen2 sentences2011Ely, 48 S.W.3d at 722 (citing Burns, 6 S.W.3d at 467, 469 ) (emphases added) (citation omitted). 2001Id. at 469 . | 1 | 3 |
Obama for America v. Jon Hustedgreen1 sentence2020See, e.g., Mays, 951 F.3d at 791 (citing Obama for Am., 697 F.3d at 433–34). | 1 | 1 |
Tommy Ray Mays, II v. Frank LaRosegreen1 sentence2020See, e.g., Mays, 951 F.3d at 791 (citing Obama for Am., 697 F.3d at 433–34). | 1 | 1 |
Andrew K. Armbrister v. Melissa H. Armbristergreen1 sentence2015See Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d at 705 . | 1 | 1 |
Caudill v. Foleygreen1 sentence2015If the court finds that a material change in circumstances has not occurred, it “is not required to make a best interests determination and must deny the request for a change of custody.” Pippin v. Pippin, 277 S.W.3d 398, 405 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (quoting Caudill v. Foley, 21 S.W.3d 203, 213 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999)). | 1 | 1 |
Pippin v. Pippingreen1 sentence2015If the court finds that a material change in circumstances has not occurred, it “is not required to make a best interests determination and must deny the request for a change of custody.” Pippin v. Pippin, 277 S.W.3d 398, 405 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (quoting Caudill v. Foley, 21 S.W.3d 203, 213 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pagegreen1 sentence2015“This second step of the analysis requires a determination that: „(1) reasonable minds could accept the offense as lesser-included; and (2) the evidence is legally sufficient to support a conviction for the lesser-included offense.‟” State v. Page, 184 S.W.3d 223, 228 (Tenn. 2006) (citing State v. Wilson, 92 S.W.3d 391, 394 (Tenn. 2002)). | 1 | 1 |
State of Tennessee v. Broderick Devonte Faynegreen1 sentence2015In addition, Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-18-110, which governs lesser-included offenses, “places on the defendant the burden of requesting an instruction on any lesser included offense.” State v. Fayne, 451 S.W.3d 362, 371 (Tenn. 2014).3 Code section 40-18-110(c) provides that “[a]bsent a written request, the failure of a trial judge to instruct the jury on any lesser included offense may not be presented as a ground for relief in a motion for new trial or on appeal.” “[I]f a defendant fails to request an instruction on a lesser-included offense in writing at trial, the issue will be w | 1 | 1 |
Board of Trustees of the Museum of the American Indian v. Board of Trustees of the Huntington Free Library & Reading Roomgreen2 sentences2011Heye Found., 610 N.Y.S.2d at 499 (emphasis added). 2011Heye Found., 610 N.Y.S.2d at 499 (emphasis added) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Watkins
green
2 sentences2015The second step of the test ―requires courts to examine the statutory elements of the offenses.‖ Id. at 557 . 2013The second step of the test “requires courts to examine the statutory elements of the offenses.” Id. at 557 . | 3 | 2013–2016 |
Sands v. State
green
2 sentences2014Therefore, we must consider the second step in the inquiry – whether the Petitioner’s grounds for relief “actually arose after the limitations period would normally have commenced.” See Sands, 903 S.W.2d at 301 . 2014Therefore, we must consider the second step in the inquiry – whether the Petitioner’s alleged claims “actually arose after the limitations period would normally have commenced.” See Sands, 903 S.W.2d at 301 . | 2 | 2014–2014 |
State of Tennessee v. NV Sumatra Tobacco Trading Company
green
2 sentences2018Fairness At the second step in the analysis, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that “despite the existence of minimum contacts, exercising jurisdiction would be unreasonable or unfair.” Sumatra, 403 S.W.3d at 760 . 2018The court considers “the burden on the defendant, the interests of the forum state, the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining relief, the judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies, and the state’s interest in furthering substantive social policies.” Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Brown v. Tennessee Title Loans, Inc.
green
1 sentence2015The first step is to determine whether the “express statutory language” of the act creates a private right of action, and if it does not, the second step of the analysis is to “determine whether the legislature intended to create a private right of action.” Id. at 855 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
1 sentence2014Petitioner claims that the State withheld exculpatory evidence that should have been disclosed under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Pickler v. Parr
green
1 sentence2012Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Ely
green
1 sentence2011Ely, 48 S.W.3d at 722 (citing Burns, 6 S.W.3d at 467, 469 ) (emphases added) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Cranston v. Combs
green
1 sentence2005If a material change in circumstances has occurred, the trial court must then proceed to the second step in the analysis, that is, determining whether -14- the modification of custody is in the child’s best interest in light of the factors enumerated in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-106.7 Furthermore, “[a]lthough evidence of substantial harm or harm to the child is certainly relevant to the trial court’s determination, the analysis . . . does not require a finding of harm or substantial harm to establish a material change in circumstances.” Cranston, 106 S.W.3d at 645 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.
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.