73 Tennessee opinions name it 1 courts 2013–2026 49 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 |
|---|---|---|
White v. Moodygreen2 sentences2025This requires more than a “rote examination” of the statutory factors, In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d at 878 , or “tallying the number of statutory factors weighing in favor of or against termination.” In re Gabriella D., 531 S.W.3d at 682 (citing White v. Moody, 171 S.W.3d 187, 193-94 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004)). 2024Further, it “consists of more than tallying the number of statutory factors weighing in favor of or against termination.” Id. (citing White v. Moody, 171 S.W.3d 187, 193-94 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004)). | 55 | 68 |
Gonsewski v. Gonsewskigreen1 sentence2013Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99, 105-06, 108-09 (Tenn. 2011) (footnote omitted). -15- We refer to a number of statutory factors in determining the nature and amount of alimony: (1) The relative earning capacity, obligations, needs, and financial resources of each party, including income from pension, profit sharing or retirement plans and all other sources; (2) The relative education and training of each party, the ability and opportunity of each party to secure such education and training, and the necessity of a party to secure further education and training to improve such party’s earn | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Gabriella D.
green
2 sentences2025This requires more than a “rote examination” of the statutory factors, In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d at 878 , or “tallying the number of statutory factors weighing in favor of or against termination.” In re Gabriella D., 531 S.W.3d at 682 (citing White v. Moody, 171 S.W.3d 187, 193-94 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004)). 2022When the petition was filed in this case, Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(i) listed nine statutory factors for consideration.4 Determining what is in the best interest of a child “involves more than simply ‘tallying the number of statutory factors weighing in favor of or against termination.’” In re Neveah M., 614 S.W.3d 659 , 679 (Tenn. 2020) (quoting In re Gabriella D., 531 S.W.3d at 682 ). | 18 | 2018–2025 |
In Re Audrey S.
green
2 sentences2025This requires more than a “rote examination” of the statutory factors, In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d at 878 , or “tallying the number of statutory factors weighing in favor of or against termination.” In re Gabriella D., 531 S.W.3d at 682 (citing White v. Moody, 171 S.W.3d 187, 193-94 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004)). 2024Further, it “consists of more than tallying the number of statutory factors weighing in favor of or against termination.” Id. (citing White v. Moody, 171 S.W.3d 187, 193-94 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004)). | 7 | 2020–2025 |
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.