list factors in Tennessee

2020The Legislature has set out a list of factors at Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(i) for the courts to follow in determining the child’s best interest.11 The list of factors in the statute “is not exhaustive, and the statute does not require every factor to appear before a court can find that termination is in a child’s best interest.” In re S.L.A., 223 S.W.3d 295, 301 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (citing Tenn. Dept. of Children’s Svcs. v. T.S.W., No. M2001-01735-COA-R3-CV, 2002 WL 970434 , at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 10, 2002); In re I.C.G., No. E2006-00746-COA-R3- PT, 2006 WL 3077510 , at *4

2020The Legislature has set out a list of factors at Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(i) for the courts to follow in determining the child’s best interest.5 The list of factors in the statute “is not exhaustive, and the statute 5 The factors at Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(i) are: In determining whether termination of parental or guardianship rights is in the best interest of the child pursuant to this part, the court shall consider, but is not limited to, the following: (1) Whether the parent or guardian has made such an adjustment of circumstance, conduct, or conditions as

2022This list of factors is not exhaustive, nor does the statute “require a trial court to find the existence of each enumerated factor before it may conclude that terminating a parent’s rights is in the best interest of a child.” In re M.A.R., 183 S.W. 3d 652, 667 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).

2022This list of factors is not exhaustive, nor does the statute “require a trial court to find the existence of each enumerated factor before it may conclude that terminating a parent's rights is in the best interest of a child.” In re M.A.R., 183 S.W. 3d 652, 667 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2005), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov. 21, 2005).

2000In State v. Bland, the Court addressed the list of factors to be considered in proportionality review. 958 S.W.2d 651, 667 (Tenn.1997).

2000In State v. Bland , the Court addressed the list of factors to be considered in proportionality review. 958 S.W.2d 651, 667 (Tenn.1997).

2025The list of factors is not exclusive, and “a trial court need not consider the seventh factor unless and until the defendant establishes a fair and just reason for permitting withdrawal.” Id. at 446-47 (citing United States v. Ellis, 470 F.3d 275, 286 (6th Cir. 2006)).

2025The list of factors is not exclusive, and “a trial court need not consider the seventh factor unless and until the defendant establishes a fair and just reason for permitting withdrawal.” Id. at 446-47 (citing United States v. Ellis, 470 F.3d 275, 286 (6th Cir. 2006)).

2025The list of factors is not exclusive, and “a trial court need not consider the seventh factor unless and until the defendant establishes a fair and just reason for permitting withdrawal.” Id. at 446-47 (citing United States v. Ellis, 470 F.3d 275, 286 (6th Cir. 2006)).

2025The list of factors is not exclusive, and “a trial court need not consider the seventh factor unless and until the defendant establishes a fair and just reason for permitting withdrawal.” Id. at 446-47 (citing United States v. Ellis, 470 F.3d 275, 286 (6th Cir. 2006)).

2026See Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d at 523 ; Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d at 878 (“The relevancy and weight to be given each factor depends on the unique facts of each case.”).

2025See Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d at 523 ; Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d at 878 (“The relevancy and weight to be given each factor depends on the unique facts of each case.”).

2026See Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d at 523 ; Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d at 878 (“The relevancy and weight to be given each factor depends on the unique facts of each case.”).

2025See Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d at 523 ; Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d at 878 (“The relevancy and weight to be given each factor depends on the unique facts of each case.”).

2016However, the court asserted that “this list of factors is not exclusive; that no single factor is dispositive; and that the relevance of each factor varies according to the circumstances surrounding both the plea and the motion to withdraw.” Id. (citing Haygood, 549 F.3d at 1052 ).

2015However, the court asserted that “this list of factors is not exclusive; that no single factor is dispositive; and that the relevance of each factor varies according to the circumstances surrounding both the plea and the motion to withdraw.” Id. (citing Haygood, 549 F.3d at 1052 ).

2021Our supreme court, in McDaniel, set forth the following list of factors for determining the reliability of scientific evidence: (1) whether scientific evidence has been tested and the methodology with which it has been tested; (2) whether the evidence has been subjected to peer review or publication; (3) whether a potential rate of error is known; (4) whether . . . the evidence is generally accepted in the scientific community; and (5) whether the expert’s research in the field has been conducted independent of litigation. 955 S.W.2d at 265 .

2021Our supreme court, in McDaniel, set forth the following list of factors for determining the reliability of scientific evidence: (1) whether scientific evidence has been tested and the methodology with which it has been tested; (2) whether the evidence has been subjected to peer review or publication; (3) whether a potential rate of error is known; (4) whether . . . the evidence is generally accepted in the scientific community; and (5) whether the expert’s research in the field has been conducted independent of litigation. 955 S.W.2d at 265 .

2022In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993), the United States Supreme court held that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 requires that a trial court “ensure that any and all scientific testimony . . . is not only relevant, but reliable.” In - 30 - McDaniel, our supreme court set forth the following list of factors for determining the reliability of scientific evidence: (1) whether scientific evidence has been tested and the methodology with which it has been tested; (2) whether the evidence has been subjected to peer review or publication; (3) whether a potential rate

2017In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993), the United States Supreme court held that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 requires that a trial court “ensure that any and all scientific testimony . . . is not only relevant, but reliable.” In McDaniel v. CSX Transp., Inc., 955 S.W.2d 257, 265 (Tenn. 1997), our supreme court set forth the following list of factors for determining the reliability of scientific evidence: (1) whether scientific evidence has been tested and the methodology with which it has been tested; (2) whether the evidence has been subjected to peer revi

2017In re M.A.R., 183 S.W.3d 652, 667 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005); White v. Moody, 171 S.W.3d 187, 193-94 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).

2017In re M.A.R., 183 S.W.3d 652, 667 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005); White v. Moody, 171 S.W.3d 187, 193 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).

2023Sys., Inc., 807 F.2d 1279, 1283 (6th Cir. 1986)).

2016Sys., Inc., 807 F.2d 1279, 1283 (6th Cir. 1986)).

2017Nonscientific expert testimony is based on “„specialized knowledge,‟ that is, the expert‟s experience.” State v. Stevens, 78 S.W.3d 817, 832 (Tenn. 2002).

2016Nonscientific expert testimony is based on “„specialized knowledge,‟ that is, the expert‟s experience.” State v. Stevens, 78 S.W.3d 817, 832 (Tenn. 2002).

2015Trial courts have “wide latitude in fashioning an equitable division of marital property.” Altman v. Altman, 181 S.W.3d 676, 683 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005); however, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-4-121(c) directs the trial court to consider a list of factors when making an equitable division of marital property.

2015Trial courts have “wide latitude in fashioning an equitable division of marital property.” Altman v. Altman, 181 S.W.3d 676, 683 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005); however, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-4-121(c) directs the trial court to consider a list of factors when making equitable -10- division of marital property.

2014State Dept. of Children's Services v. Hood, 338 S.W.3d 917, 929 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (citing State v. T.S.W., No. M2001–01735–COA–R3–JV, 2002 WL 970434 , at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 10, 2002)).

2014Hood, 338 S.W.3d at 929 (citing State v. T.S.W., No. M2001–01735–COA–R3–JV, 2002 WL 970434 , at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 10, 2002)). 19 The trial court provided extensive findings of fact in its February 18, 2014 Order Terminating Parental Rights.

2021See T.C.A. § 40-35-115(b)(6) (using the conjunction “or”); Pollard, 432 S.W.3d at 862 (“Any one of these grounds is a sufficient basis for the imposition of consecutive sentences.”).

2014At a later pretrial hearing after the final report was completed, defense counsel told the court that Mr. Maloney’s final report included a section noting it was peer reviewed and that the section would be removed. -34- The Defendant argues that peer review is included in the list of factors used to determine the reliability of expert testimony found in Coe v. State, 17 S.W.3d 193, 226 (Tenn. 2000), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Irick, 320 S.W.3d 284 (Tenn. 2010).