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.
11 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1979–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Burden v. Burdengreen2 sentences2022In a best interest analysis, the court “shall consider all relevant factors.” Id. § 36-6-106(a); see Burden v. Burden, 250 S.W.3d 899, 910 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (reasoning that the court “shall consider” best interest factors “if they are relevant”); Burnett v. Burnett, No. E2002-01614-COA-R3-CV, 2003 WL 21782290 , at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 23, 2003) (explaining that a trial court must “consider all of the listed factors which are applicable”); accord Dishman v. Dishman, No. M2008-01194-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 1181341 , at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 1, 2009). 2022In a best interest analysis, the court “shall consider all relevant factors.” Id. § 36-6-106(a); see Burden v. Burden, 250 S.W.3d 899, 910 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (reasoning that the court “shall consider” best interest factors “if they are relevant”); Burnett v. Burnett, No. E2002- 01614-COA-R3-CV, 2003 WL 21782290 , at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 23, 2003) (explaining that a trial court must “consider all of the listed factors which are applicable”). | 2 | 2 |
In Re Marrgreen1 sentence2025“Ascertaining a child’s best interests does not call for a rote examination of each of [the] factors”; instead “[t]he relevancy and weight to be given to each factor depends on the unique facts of each case.” In re Marr, 194 S.W.3d 490, 499 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005); see also Burnett v. Burnett, No. E2002-01614-COA-R3-CV, 2003 WL 21782290 , at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 23, 2003) (explaining that although a trial court must “consider all of the listed factors which are applicable … the statute does not require a trial court, when issuing a memorandum opinion or final judgment, to list every applicabl | 1 | 1 |
Wright Ex Rel. Wright v. Wrightgreen1 sentence2012See Wright, 337 S.W.3d at 177 n.17. | 1 | 1 |
Burlew v. Burlewgreen1 sentence2003See Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(1) (1996 & Supp.2000); Burlew v. Burlew, 40 S.W.3d 465, 470-71 (Tenn.2001) (stating that the purpose of rehabilitative alimony is to "aid the disadvantaged spouse to become and remain self-sufficient”). | 1 | 1 |
Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reidgreen1 sentence1998See id. at 751-52 . | 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. Anderson
green
1 sentence2026Id. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Cummings
green
1 sentence2010Here, the trial court found that under factor (b)(2), “The defendant is an offender whose record of criminal activity is extensive.” The trial court acknowledged that Parker had no prior record; however, the trial court referred to State v. Cummings, 868 S.W.2d 661 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Neil v. Biggers
green
2 sentences1994In Biggers , the Court listed the factors to be considered in determining whether the identification was too unreliable to be admitted into evidence: 1. the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime; 2. the witness’s degree of attention at the time of the crime; 3. the accuracy of the witness’s prior description; 4. the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation; 5.the time elapsed between the crime and the confrontation. 409 U.S. at 199 , 93 S.Ct. at 382 . 1994In Biggers , the Court listed the factors to be considered in determining whether the identification was too unreliable to be admitted into evidence: 1. the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime; 2. the witness’s degree of attention at the time of the crime; 3. the accuracy of the witness’s prior description; 4. the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation; 5.the time elapsed between the crime and the confrontation. 409 U.S. at 199 , 93 S.Ct. at 382 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
United States v. Perez
green
1 sentence1992In that case, the court listed as an exception to the prohibition against double jeopardy instances when there is a manifest necessity for the [dismissal] else “the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated.” Id. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Cromwell General Contractor, Inc. v. Lytle
green
2 sentences1979In Cromwell General Contractor, Inc. v. Lytle, 222 Tenn. 633 , 439 S.W.2d 598 (1969), the Court listed the factors relevant to determining whether an employer-employee relationship existed or the worker was an independent contractor. 1979In Cromwell General Contractor, Inc. v. Lytle, 222 Tenn. 633 , 439 S.W.2d 598 (1969), the Court listed the factors relevant to determining whether an employer-employee relationship existed or the worker was an independent contractor. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.