16 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hickman v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See Hickman v. State, 153 S.W.3d 16 , 23 n.4 (Tenn. 2004); see also Joseph Floyd, 2016 WL 4545955 , at *2. 2016See Hickman v. State, 153 S.W.3d 16 , 23 n.4 (Tenn. 2004) (“The language „in custody‟ has long been broadly construed to permit persons to collaterally challenge, by means of a post- conviction petition, a judgment of conviction that later may be used to enhance a sentence on another conviction. | 2 | 2 |
Maryland v. Shatzergreen1 sentence2021Id. at 436-37 ; see Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98, 112-13 (2010) (noting that freedom of movement is not accorded talismanic power in the custody analysis because the application of Miranda should be governed by the concerns regarding coercion which underlie the decision). | 1 | 1 |
State v. McClintockgreen2 sentences2015The in custody requirement has been “liberally construed to permit collateral review of an allegedly unconstitutional conviction, whether or not the . . . petitioner is in fact in custody, if such petitioner is still suffering under a direct or concomitant disability due to the conviction.” State v. McClintock, 732 S.W.2d 268, 272 (Tenn. 1987). 2015Our supreme court also has concluded that a judgment of conviction “may be used as a basis for infliction of [future] greater punishment” and that “a criminal case is moot only if it is shown that there is no possibility that any collateral legal consequences will be imposed on the basis of the challenged conviction.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Ponzi v. Fessendengreen1 sentence2013Relevant to this inquiry is the federal “doctrine of primary custody.” In Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 260-262 (1922), the Supreme Court first recognized the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, to provide an orderly method of prosecuting an individual who has violated the law of more than one sovereign. | 1 | 1 |
Shell v. Lawgreen1 sentence2012The State contends that the trial court did not err by admitting the evidence. -8- “Whether the requisite chain of custody has been established to justify admission . . . is ‘a matter committed to the discretion of the trial judge and [t]his determination will not be overturned in the absence of a clearly mistaken exercise thereof.’” Davis v. Shelby County Sheriff's Dep’t, 278 S.W.3d 256, 267 (Tenn. 2009) (quoting Shell v. Law, 935 S.W.2d 402, 409 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996)). | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Shelby County Sheriff's Departmentgreen1 sentence2012The State contends that the trial court did not err by admitting the evidence. -8- “Whether the requisite chain of custody has been established to justify admission . . . is ‘a matter committed to the discretion of the trial judge and [t]his determination will not be overturned in the absence of a clearly mistaken exercise thereof.’” Davis v. Shelby County Sheriff's Dep’t, 278 S.W.3d 256, 267 (Tenn. 2009) (quoting Shell v. Law, 935 S.W.2d 402, 409 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996)). | 1 | 1 |
Hall v. Bookoutgreen1 sentence2003Hall v. Bookout, 87 S.W.3d 80, 86 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). | 1 | 1 |
Town of Alamo v. FORCUM-JAMES COMPANYgreen2 sentences2003Id.; see also Bowman v. Bowman, 836 S.W.2d 563, 566 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1991)(citing Town of Alamo v. Forcum-James Co., 205 Tenn. 478 , -6- 483, 327 S.W.2d 47, 49 (1959), findings of the trial court which are dependent upon witness credibility are entitled to great weight on appeal.) The trial court was presented with several witnesses’ testimony concerning the love, affection and emotional ties between both parents and the child; the disposition of each parent to provide life necessities for the child; the degree to which the Mother had been the primary care giver up to the point of the custody hea 2003Id.; see also Bowman v. Bowman, 836 S.W.2d 563, 566 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1991)(citing Town of Alamo v. Forcum-James Co., 205 Tenn. 478 , -6- 483, 327 S.W.2d 47, 49 (1959), findings of the trial court which are dependent upon witness credibility are entitled to great weight on appeal.) The trial court was presented with several witnesses’ testimony concerning the love, affection and emotional ties between both parents and the child; the disposition of each parent to provide life necessities for the child; the degree to which the Mother had been the primary care giver up to the point of the custody hea | 1 | 1 |
Bowman v. Bowmangreen1 sentence2003Id.; see also Bowman v. Bowman, 836 S.W.2d 563, 566 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1991)(citing Town of Alamo v. Forcum-James Co., 205 Tenn. 478 , -6- 483, 327 S.W.2d 47, 49 (1959), findings of the trial court which are dependent upon witness credibility are entitled to great weight on appeal.) The trial court was presented with several witnesses’ testimony concerning the love, affection and emotional ties between both parents and the child; the disposition of each parent to provide life necessities for the child; the degree to which the Mother had been the primary care giver up to the point of the custody hea | 1 | 1 |
Dantzler v. Dantzlergreen1 sentence1997Dantzler v. Dantzler, 665 S.W.2d 385, 387 (Tenn. App. 1983). 1 At the final custody hearing, the parties again agreed that the Father should have custody of the daughter. | 1 | 1 |
Dailey v. Daileygreen1 sentence1997Accordingly, the custody issues on appeal relate only to the parties’ two sons. 5 In Massengale v. Massengale, 915 S.W.2d 818 (Tenn. App. 1995), this court set forth the applicable standard for reviewinga trial court’s determination of the issue of changed circumstances in a custody modification proceeding: In order to justify a change in a custodial arrangement, there must be “such a change in circumstances as will directly affect the welfare of the minor.” Dailey v. Dailey, 635 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tenn. App. 1981). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Berkemer v. McCarty
green
2 sentences2021Id. at 436-37 ; see Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98, 112-13 (2010) (noting that freedom of movement is not accorded talismanic power in the custody analysis because the application of Miranda should be governed by the concerns regarding coercion which underlie the decision). 2021Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 442 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Anderson
green
1 sentence2021The custody analysis requires determining “whether, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would consider himself or herself deprived of freedom of movement to a degree associated with a formal arrest.” Anderson, 937 S.W.2d at 855 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Heidbreder v. Heidbreder
green
1 sentence2015Heidbreder, 284 P.3d at 891 . 5 inadequate notice that the court would address child support at the custody hearing. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Craig V. v. Mia W.
green
2 sentences2012But this court agrees with the observation of the New York court that the illegal sexual contact that led to the conception of the Child is to be considered by this court “as it relates to the Child’s best interest at the custody hearing.” Craig v. Mia W., supra, 116 A.D.[2d] at 132. 2012Father’s illegal sexual contact with Mother “is to be considered as it relates to the Child’s best interest at the custody hearing.” In re: Craig v. Mia, supra. Our State Legislature has spoken on this issue as follows: T.C.A. 36-6-406. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
In Re Adoption of M.J.S.
green
2 sentences2010Id. 2010Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
O'Rourke v. O'Rourke
green
1 sentence2010At the final custody hearing in this case in 2007, Father testified that Daniel had just finished his first year of college. 3 The two opinions referred to are O’Rourke v. O’Rourke, No. M2007-02485-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 1579244 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 5, 2009) (Motion to Rehear denied July 7, 2009) (Rule 11 permission to appeal denied Jan. 25, 2010) and O’Rourke v. O’Rourke, No. M2006-01071-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL 1815413 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 15, 2007) (no Tenn. R. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
In Re HEJ
green
1 sentence2004In the Matter of D.L.B., 118 S.W.3d at 367 ; In re H.E.J., 9 Mother presumably meant the final custody hearing in juvenile court, which she did not attend. -8- 124 S.W.3d 110 , 113 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
In Re DLB
green
1 sentence2004In the Matter of D.L.B., 118 S.W.3d at 367 ; In re H.E.J., 9 Mother presumably meant the final custody hearing in juvenile court, which she did not attend. -8- 124 S.W.3d 110 , 113 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Hoalcraft v. Smithson
green
2 sentences2001During this interview, the children told the trial court that they wanted to rem ain with Mr. S mithson and that they did not desire to return to Thailand, but they did not express dissatisfaction with the Hoalcrafts or their life in Thailand.8 5 Mr. Smithson paid for the children’s airfare. 6 Hoalcraft v. Smithson, 19 S.W.3d at 825 . 7 Hoalcraft v. Smithson, 19 S.W.3d at 825 . 8 Hoalcraft v. Smithson, 19 S.W.3d at 825-826 . 3 During the interviews, the trial judge abruptly decided to conduct a custody hearing the next day. 2001During this interview, the children told the trial court that they wanted to rem ain with Mr. S mithson and that they did not desire to return to Thailand, but they did not express dissatisfaction with the Hoalcrafts or their life in Thailand.8 5 Mr. Smithson paid for the children’s airfare. 6 Hoalcraft v. Smithson, 19 S.W.3d at 825 . 7 Hoalcraft v. Smithson, 19 S.W.3d at 825 . 8 Hoalcraft v. Smithson, 19 S.W.3d at 825-826 . 3 During the interviews, the trial judge abruptly decided to conduct a custody hearing the next day. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Massengale v. Massengale
green
1 sentence1997Accordingly, the custody issues on appeal relate only to the parties’ two sons. 5 In Massengale v. Massengale, 915 S.W.2d 818 (Tenn. App. 1995), this court set forth the applicable standard for reviewinga trial court’s determination of the issue of changed circumstances in a custody modification proceeding: In order to justify a change in a custodial arrangement, there must be “such a change in circumstances as will directly affect the welfare of the minor.” Dailey v. Dailey, 635 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tenn. App. 1981). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Luke v. Luke
green
1 sentence1990We are not asked to terminate a mother’s custody of her child, but merely to grant the father visitation privileges with his daughter_ 651 S.W.2d at 221 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.