four-element analysis (Tennessee) · Go Syfert
← Tennessee issues

four-element analysis in Tennessee

17 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2011–2026 8 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 (6)

CaseFollowedCited
Jacqueline G. Furlong v. Kevin Keane Furlonggreen
tennctapp · 2011 · cited in 15 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2013–2026
2 sentences

2026Auth., 249 S.W.3d 346 , 354–55 (Tenn. 2008); Furlong v. Furlong, 370 S.W.3d 329, 336 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (stating that the four-element analysis outlined in Konvalinka applies to criminal and civil contempt actions).

2025Auth., 249 S.W.3d 346, 354-55 (Tenn. 2008); Furlong v. Furlong, 370 S.W.3d 329, 336 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (stating that the four- element analysis outlined in Konvalinka applies to criminal and civil contempt actions).

1515
Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authoritygreen
tenn · 2008 · cited in 16 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2011–2026
2 sentences

2026Auth., 249 S.W.3d 346 , 354–55 (Tenn. 2008); Furlong v. Furlong, 370 S.W.3d 329, 336 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (stating that the four-element analysis outlined in Konvalinka applies to criminal and civil contempt actions).

2025Auth., 249 S.W.3d 346, 354-55 (Tenn. 2008); Furlong v. Furlong, 370 S.W.3d 329, 336 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (stating that the four- element analysis outlined in Konvalinka applies to criminal and civil contempt actions).

616
Long v. McAllister-Longgreen
tennctapp · 2006 · cited in 3 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2020–2025
2 sentences

2025As this Court has previously explained, -11- A person charged with criminal contempt is “presumed innocent and may not be found to be in criminal contempt in the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they have willfully failed to comply with the court’s order.” Long v. McAllister-Long, 221 S.W.3d 1, 13 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (citing Black v. Blount, 938 S.W.2d 394, 398 (Tenn. 1996); Thigpen v. Thigpen, 874 S.W.2d 51, 53 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993)).

2022As this Court has previously explained, A person charged with criminal contempt is “presumed innocent and may not be found to be in criminal contempt in the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they have willfully failed to comply with the court’s order.” Long v. McAllister-Long, 221 S.W.3d 1, 13 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (citing Black v. Blount, 938 S.W.2d 394, 398 (Tenn. 1996); Thigpen v. Thigpen, 874 S.W.3d 51 , 53 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993)).

33
Black v. Blountgreen
tenn · 1996 · cited in 3 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2020–2025
2 sentences

2025As this Court has previously explained, -11- A person charged with criminal contempt is “presumed innocent and may not be found to be in criminal contempt in the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they have willfully failed to comply with the court’s order.” Long v. McAllister-Long, 221 S.W.3d 1, 13 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (citing Black v. Blount, 938 S.W.2d 394, 398 (Tenn. 1996); Thigpen v. Thigpen, 874 S.W.2d 51, 53 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993)).

2022As this Court has previously explained, A person charged with criminal contempt is “presumed innocent and may not be found to be in criminal contempt in the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they have willfully failed to comply with the court’s order.” Long v. McAllister-Long, 221 S.W.3d 1, 13 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (citing Black v. Blount, 938 S.W.2d 394, 398 (Tenn. 1996); Thigpen v. Thigpen, 874 S.W.3d 51 , 53 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993)).

33
Thigpen v. Thigpengreen
tennctapp · 1993 · cited in 2 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2020–2025
2 sentences

2025As this Court has previously explained, -11- A person charged with criminal contempt is “presumed innocent and may not be found to be in criminal contempt in the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they have willfully failed to comply with the court’s order.” Long v. McAllister-Long, 221 S.W.3d 1, 13 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (citing Black v. Blount, 938 S.W.2d 394, 398 (Tenn. 1996); Thigpen v. Thigpen, 874 S.W.2d 51, 53 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993)).

2020As this Court has previously explained, A person charged with criminal contempt is “presumed innocent and may not be found to be in criminal contempt in the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they have willfully failed to comply with the court’s order.” Long v. McAllister-Long, 221 S.W.3d 1, 13 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (citing Black v. Blount, 938 S.W.2d 394, 398 (Tenn. 1996); Thigpen v. Thigpen, 874 S.W.2d 51, 53 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993)).

22
Nance v. State Industries, Inc.green
tenn · 2000 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
2 sentences

2012At trial, counsel for the Employee and the Employer agreed that the four-element test set out in Nance v. State Industries, Inc., 33 S.W.3d 222, 226 (Tenn.Workers Comp.Panel 2000), controlled the disposition of the claim.

2012At trial, counsel for the Employee and the Employer agreed that the four-element test set out in Nance v. State Industries, Inc., 33 S.W.3d 222, 226 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Statutes the citing opinions construe

TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-9-102 (15) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (6) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101 (5) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-1-122 (4) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-9-103 (4) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-302 (4) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-605 (3) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-103 (3) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-404 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

TN 17 (2011–2026) MT 16 (1979–2026) WI 12 (1991–2023) IA 5 (2015–2018) CA 5 (1973–2022) CO 3 (2008–2025) SC 3 (1996–2005) RI 3 (1992–2020) TX 3 (1991–2015) LA 2 (1994–2000) OR 2 (2017–2019) ME 2 (1991–2021) NV 2 (2015–2016) ID 2 (2018–2018) PA 2 (2017–2026) UT 2 (1989–1999)

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