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.
9 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1920–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
CHILDRENS v. Union Realty Co., Ltd.green1 sentence2018See Forbess v. Forbess, 370 S.W.3d 347 , 357 n.13 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (citing Childress v. Union Realty Co., 97 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002)). | 1 | 1 |
Charlotte Scott Forbess v. Michael E. Forbessgreen1 sentence2018See Forbess v. Forbess, 370 S.W.3d 347 , 357 n.13 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (citing Childress v. Union Realty Co., 97 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002)). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Estate of Ridleygreen1 sentence2017In In re Estate of Ridley, 270 S.W.3d 37, 41 (Tenn. 2008), relied upon by Conservator, our Supreme Court determined that the appellant had filed a “motion to set aside” in an effort to have the trial court “reconsider” (placed in quotes by the High Court) its denial of his prior “motion to alter or amend.” Inasmuch as Petitioners in this action were requesting that the trial court set aside and vacate the orders awarding attorney’s fees in their entirety and the trial court had ruled the orders to be final judgments, we determine that the trial court should have treated Petitioners’ motion as | 1 | 1 |
Kevin Turner v. Stephanie D. Turnergreen1 sentence2017Moreover, our Supreme Court has held that the “reasonable time” requirement of Rule 60.02 “does not abrogate the longstanding rule that void judgments may be attacked at any time.” Turner, 473 S.W.3d at 279 (“The reasonable time filing requirement thus may not be applied to bar motions seeking relief from void judgments pursuant to Tennessee Rule 60.02(3).”).5 We therefore determine that to the extent that Petitioners’ motion to set aside and vacate the attorney’s fee orders was based on their argument that the judgments stemming from Conservator’s emergency motions were void for lack of notic | 1 | 1 |
Kathryn A. Duke v. Harold W. Duke, IIIgreen1 sentence2017Duke v. Duke, 398 S.W.3d 665, 668 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). | 1 | 1 |
Morton v. Mortongreen2 sentences2014We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court. 3 The second and final issue we address is Petitioners’ issue regarding whether this appeal is frivolous. “ ‘A frivolous appeal is one that is ‘devoid of merit,’ or one in which there is little prospect that [an appeal] can ever succeed.’ ” Morton v. Morton, 182 S.W.3d 821, 888 (Tenn.Ct.App.2005) (quoting Industrial Dev. 2014We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.2 The second and final issue we address is Petitioners’ issue regarding whether this appeal is frivolous. “‘A frivolous appeal is one that is ‘devoid of merit,’ or one in which there is little prospect that [an appeal] can ever succeed.’” Morton v. Morton, 182 S.W.3d 821, 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (quoting Industrial Dev. | 1 | 1 |
INDUST. DEV. BD. OF TULLAHOMA v. Hancockgreen2 sentences2014Bd. of the City of Tullahoma v. Hancock, 901 S.W.2d 382, 385 (Tenn.Ct.App.1995)). 2014Bd. of the City of Tullahoma v. Hancock, 901 S.W.2d 382, 385 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995)). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Drinnongreen1 sentence2001It is well-established that "parents have a fundamental right to the care, custody, and control of their children." In re Drinnon, 776 S.W.2d 96, 97 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988) (citing Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 , 92 S.Ct. 1208 , 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972)). | 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 Audrey S.
green
1 sentence2019Additionally, acting under the authority in In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d at 861 and In re Jaylah W., 486 S.W.3d at 555 , we remand Petitioners’ claim that Mother abandoned the Child by willfully failing to visit during the four months before the petition was filed, with instructions for the trial court to make “specific findings of fact and conclusions of law,” as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113 (k). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In re Jaylah W.
green
1 sentence2019Additionally, acting under the authority in In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d at 861 and In re Jaylah W., 486 S.W.3d at 555 , we remand Petitioners’ claim that Mother abandoned the Child by willfully failing to visit during the four months before the petition was filed, with instructions for the trial court to make “specific findings of fact and conclusions of law,” as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113 (k). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In Re Adoption of A.M.H.
green
1 sentence2017The Supreme Court has held that “a parent who attempted to visit and maintain relations with his child, but was thwarted by the acts of others and circumstances beyond his control, did not willfully abandon his child.” In re A.M.H., 215 S.W.3d at 810 (citing Swanson, 2 S.W.3d at 189 ). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
In Re Swanson
green
1 sentence2017The Supreme Court has held that “a parent who attempted to visit and maintain relations with his child, but was thwarted by the acts of others and circumstances beyond his control, did not willfully abandon his child.” In re A.M.H., 215 S.W.3d at 810 (citing Swanson, 2 S.W.3d at 189 ). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Stanley v. Illinois
green
2 sentences2001It is well-established that "parents have a fundamental right to the care, custody, and control of their children." In re Drinnon, 776 S.W.2d 96, 97 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988) (citing Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 , 92 S.Ct. 1208 , 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972)). 2001It is well-established that "parents have a fundamental right to the care, custody, and control of their children." In re Drinnon, 776 S.W.2d 96, 97 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988) (citing Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 , 92 S.Ct. 1208 , 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972)). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
1 sentence1998In this appeal of right, the petitioners claim that they are entitled to a new trial or reduction in sentence because the state suppressed exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Frazier v. State
green
1 sentence1920In our opinion this instruction was more favorable to the petitioners than they could claim under the decision of this court in Frazier v. State, 117 Tenn., 430 , 100 S. W., 94 . | 1 | 1920–1920 |
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.