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.
22 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 2001–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Baptist Memorial Hospitalgreen2 sentences2011“This review-constraining standard does not permit reviewing courts to substitute their own judgment for that of the court whose decision is being reviewed.” Id. (citing Williams v. Baptist Mem'l Hosp., 193 S.W.3d 545, 551 (Tenn. 2006); Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82, 85 (Tenn. 2001)). 2008“This review-constraining standard does not permit reviewing courts to substitute their judgment for that of the court whose decision is being reviewed.” Id. (citing Williams v. Baptist Mem’l Hosp., 193 S.W.3d 545, 551 (Tenn. 2006); Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82, 85 (Tenn. 2001)). | 7 | 7 |
Eldridge v. Eldridgegreen2 sentences2011“This review-constraining standard does not permit reviewing courts to substitute their own judgment for that of the court whose decision is being reviewed.” Id. (citing Williams v. Baptist Mem'l Hosp., 193 S.W.3d 545, 551 (Tenn. 2006); Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82, 85 (Tenn. 2001)). 2008“This review-constraining standard does not permit reviewing courts to substitute their judgment for that of the court whose decision is being reviewed.” Id. (citing Williams v. Baptist Mem’l Hosp., 193 S.W.3d 545, 551 (Tenn. 2006); Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82, 85 (Tenn. 2001)). | 7 | 7 |
White v. Vanderbilt Universitygreen2 sentences2015State ex rel Jones v. Looper, 86 S.W.3d 189, 193 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000); White v. Vanderbilt Univ., 21 S.W.3d 215, 222-23 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). 2015State ex rel Jones v. Looper, 86 S.W.3d 189, 193 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000); White v. Vanderbilt Univ., 21 S.W.3d 215, 222-23 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). | 6 | 6 |
State Ex Rel. Jones v. Loopergreen2 sentences2015State ex rel Jones v. Looper, 86 S.W.3d 189, 193 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000); White v. Vanderbilt Univ., 21 S.W.3d 215, 222-23 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). 2015State ex rel Jones v. Looper, 86 S.W.3d 189, 193 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000); White v. Vanderbilt Univ., 21 S.W.3d 215, 222-23 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). | 5 | 5 |
In Re Estate of Greenamyregreen2 sentences2014As explained by this Court in In re Estate of Greenamyre, 219 S.W.3d 877 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005): The “abuse of discretion” standard is a review-constraining standard of review that calls for less intense appellate review and, therefore, less likelihood that the trial court’s decision will be reversed. 2010Beard v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 288 S.W.3d 838, 860 (Tenn.2009); In re Estate of Greenamyre, 219 S.W.3d 877, 885 (Tenn.Ct.App.2005). | 1 | 2 |
Ballard v. Herzkegreen1 sentence2019Ballard v. Herzke, 924 S.W.2d 652, 661 (Tenn. 1996). - 10 - We review such discretionary decisions pursuant to a review- constraining standard. | 1 | 1 |
Ricky HARRIS v. STATE of Tennesseered1 sentence2014Harris v. State, 301 S.W.3d 141, 149 (Tenn. 2010) (Koch, J., concurring). | 1 | 1 |
Beard v. Board of Professional Responsibilitygreen2 sentences2010Beard v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 288 S.W.3d 838, 860 (Tenn. 2009); In re Estate of Greenamyre, 219 S.W.3d 877, 885 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). 2010Beard v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 288 S.W.3d 838, 860 (Tenn.2009); In re Estate of Greenamyre, 219 S.W.3d 877, 885 (Tenn.Ct.App.2005). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lewisgreen1 sentence2008“An abuse of discretion occurs when a court strays beyond the frame work of the applicable legal standards or when it fails to properly consider the factors customarily used to guide that discretionary decision.” Id. (citing State v. Lewis, 235 S.W.3d 136, 141 (Tenn. 2007)). | 1 | 1 |
Henry v. Goinsgreen1 sentence2006Henry v. Goins, 104 S.W.3d 475, 479 (Tenn.2003); State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Richardson v. Spanos
green
2 sentences2019Richardson, 189 S.W.3d at 725 (citing State ex rel. 2016Richardson, 189 S.W.3d at 725 . | 5 | 2008–2019 |
Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority
green
1 sentence2011“This review-constraining standard does not permit reviewing courts to substitute their own judgment for that of the court whose decision is being reviewed.” Id. (citing Williams v. Baptist Mem'l Hosp., 193 S.W.3d 545, 551 (Tenn. 2006); Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82, 85 (Tenn. 2001)). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Moody v. Hutchison
green
1 sentence2008“This review-constraining standard does not permit reviewing courts to substitute their judgment for that of the court whose decision is being reviewed.” Id. (citing Williams v. Baptist Mem’l Hosp., 193 S.W.3d 545, 551 (Tenn. 2006); Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82, 85 (Tenn. 2001)). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.