11 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1976–2012 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sparkle Laundry & Cleaners, Inc. v. Keltongreen2 sentences2012Therefore, no oral pronouncement is of any effect unless and until made a part of a written judgment duly entered.” Sparkle Laundry & Cleaners, Inc. v. Kelton, 595 S.W.2d 88, 93 (Tenn. App. 1979) (internal quotations and brackets omitted). 2010Therefore, no oral pronouncement is of any effect unless and until made a part of a written judgment duly entered.” Sparkle Laundry & Cleaners, Inc. v. Kelton, 595 S.W.2d 88, 93 (Tenn. App. 1979) (internal quotations and brackets omitted). | 3 | 3 |
Carver v. Citizen Utilities Co.green2 sentences2007Co., 954 S.W.2d 34, 35 (Tenn. 1997). 2007Co., 954 S.W.2d 34, 35 (Tenn.1997). | 1 | 1 |
Musselman v. Acuffgreen1 sentence2001In Musselman v. Acuff, 826 S.W.2d 920, 922 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991), the eastern section of this court noted that the paramount consideration in custody proceedings is the best interest of the child and that, when the issue is whether to modify a prior custody order, the court need not repeat the comparative fitness analysis set forth in Bah v. Bah, 668 S.W.2d 663 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983). | 1 | 1 |
Sartoph v. Sartophgreen1 sentence1998The court also cited with approval from Sartoph v. Sartoph, 354 A.2d 467, 473 (Md. | 1 | 1 |
Harney v. Meadowbrook Nursing Centergreen1 sentence1997See Harney v. Meadowbrook Nursing Center, 784 S.W.2d 921, 922 (Tenn. 1990); Chism -8- v. Mid-South Milling Co., 762 S.W.2d 552 (Tenn. 1988); Clanton v. Cain-Sloan, 677 S.W.2d 441 (Tenn. 1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Elmore v. Elmore
green
2 sentences2012In Elmore v. Elmore, 173 S.W.3d 447 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004), this Court stated that: It is a long-recognized rule that “a Court speaks only through its written judgments, duly entered upon its minutes. 2010In Elmore v. Elmore, 173 S.W.3d 447 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004), this Court stated that: It is a long-recognized rule that “a Court speaks only through its written judgments, duly entered upon its minutes. | 2 | 2010–2012 |
Contreras v. Ward
green
2 sentences2001Contreras was a parental relocation case which stated the long recognized rule that “the best interest and welfare of the child must be the primary focus of attention.” Contreras, 831 S.W.2d at 290 . 1998Contreras was a parental relocation case which stated the long recognized rule that “the best interest and welfare of the child must be the primary focus of attention.” Contreras, 831 S.W.2d at 290 . | 2 | 1998–2001 |
Town of Wartrace v. Wartrace & Beech Grove Turnpike Co.
green
1 sentence2008Wartrace v. Wartrace & Beech Grove Turnpike Co., 42 Tenn. (2 Cold.) 515 , 519 (1865). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Bah v. Bah
green
1 sentence2001In Musselman v. Acuff, 826 S.W.2d 920, 922 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991), the eastern section of this court noted that the paramount consideration in custody proceedings is the best interest of the child and that, when the issue is whether to modify a prior custody order, the court need not repeat the comparative fitness analysis set forth in Bah v. Bah, 668 S.W.2d 663 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
McCormick v. State
green
1 sentence2000This long recognized privilege is rooted in common law and was created to foster “the sacredness of the home and the peace of families.” McCormick v. State, 135 Tenn. 218 , 186 S.W. 95 , 97 (1916). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Chism v. Mid-South Milling Co., Inc.
red
1 sentence1997See Harney v. Meadowbrook Nursing Center, 784 S.W.2d 921, 922 (Tenn. 1990); Chism -8- v. Mid-South Milling Co., 762 S.W.2d 552 (Tenn. 1988); Clanton v. Cain-Sloan, 677 S.W.2d 441 (Tenn. 1992). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Clanton v. Cain-Sloan Co.
green
1 sentence1997See Harney v. Meadowbrook Nursing Center, 784 S.W.2d 921, 922 (Tenn. 1990); Chism -8- v. Mid-South Milling Co., 762 S.W.2d 552 (Tenn. 1988); Clanton v. Cain-Sloan, 677 S.W.2d 441 (Tenn. 1992). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Delk v. State
green
1 sentence1982In its simplest form this rule provides that “if a witness swear positively that he saw or heard a fact, and another who was present, that he did not see or hear it, and the witnesses are equally faithworthy, the affirmative witness is to be believed.” Delk v. State, 40 Tenn. 79 , 81 (1859). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Taylor v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences1976Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 , 95 S.Ct. 692 , 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975). 1976Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 , 95 S.Ct. 692 , 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.