8 Tennessee opinions name it 1 courts 2000–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Denton v. Dentongreen2 sentences2001Where there is such relative economic disadvantage and rehabilitation is not feasib le in consideration of all relevant factors, including those set out in this subsection, then the court may grant an order for payment of support and maintenance on a long-term basis or until the death (con tinued...) -7- Denton, 902 S.W.2d 930, 932 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995); Brown, 913 S.W.2d at 169 . 2000While the alimony analysis is factually driven, the court also must balance several statutory factors including those enumerated in § 36-5-101(d).6 Brown at 169 ; Denton v. Denton, 902 S.W.2d 930, 932 (Tenn. Ct. App.1995). | 2 | 2 |
Riggs v. Riggsgreen1 sentence2024See Riggs v. Riggs, 250 S.W.3d 453, 457 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (noting that, of the relevant alimony factors, “the disadvantaged spouse’s need is the threshold consideration”); see also Perkins v. Perkins, No. W2021-01246-COA-R3-CV, 2023 WL 2446807 , at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2023) (“The Tennessee Supreme Court has noted that the need of the spouse seeking support is the single most important factor when determining the amount of alimony . . . .”). | 1 | 1 |
Burlew v. Burlewgreen1 sentence2019See, e.g., Bratton v. Bratton, 136 S.W.3d 595, 605 (Tenn. 2004); Burlew v. Burlew, 40 S.W.3d 465, 470 (Tenn. 2001); Crabtree v. Crabtree, 16 S.W.3d 356, 360 (Tenn. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
Bratton v. Brattongreen1 sentence2019See, e.g., Bratton v. Bratton, 136 S.W.3d 595, 605 (Tenn. 2004); Burlew v. Burlew, 40 S.W.3d 465, 470 (Tenn. 2001); Crabtree v. Crabtree, 16 S.W.3d 356, 360 (Tenn. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
Crabtree v. Crabtreegreen1 sentence2019See, e.g., Bratton v. Bratton, 136 S.W.3d 595, 605 (Tenn. 2004); Burlew v. Burlew, 40 S.W.3d 465, 470 (Tenn. 2001); Crabtree v. Crabtree, 16 S.W.3d 356, 360 (Tenn. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
Lancaster v. Lancastergreen1 sentence2018Although fault may properly be considered in the alimony analysis, alimony “is not and never has been intended by our legislature to be punitive.” See Lancaster v. Lancaster, 671 S.W.2d 501, 503 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984). | 1 | 1 |
Jekot v. Jekotgreen1 sentence2014When calculating income for purposes of alimony, “it is inappropriate to focus on one source of income when the party has multiple sources of income.” Jekot v. Jekot, 362 S.W.3d 76, 82 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). | 1 | 1 |
Qualls v. Quallsgreen1 sentence2000See Qualls, 589 S.W.2d at 910-11 ; Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 (d) (enumerating the appropriate factors to consider in setting alimony). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gonsewski v. Gonsewski
green
2 sentences2024In vacating the trial court’s award of alimony and remanding for reconsideration of the type, duration, and amount of alimony, if any, to be awarded, we provide the trial court with the same instructions we have provided to trial courts in other appeals in like circumstances: The trial court should make factual findings as to Husband’s need for alimony and Wife’s ability to pay; mindful of the “statutory bias toward awarding transitional or rehabilitative alimony over alimony in solido or in futuro,” Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d at 109 , the court should make findings as to whether rehabilitation of 2019Alimony The standard of review applicable in alimony cases was thoroughly considered in the Tennessee Supreme Court’s opinion in Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99 (Tenn. 2011): [T]his Court [has] repeatedly and recently observ[ed] that trial courts have broad discretion to determine whether spousal support is needed and, if so, the nature, amount, and duration of the award. | 4 | 2014–2024 |
Bogan v. Bogan
green
1 sentence2005Bogan, 60 S.W.3d at 730 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Brown v. Brown
green
1 sentence2001Where there is such relative economic disadvantage and rehabilitation is not feasib le in consideration of all relevant factors, including those set out in this subsection, then the court may grant an order for payment of support and maintenance on a long-term basis or until the death (con tinued...) -7- Denton, 902 S.W.2d 930, 932 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995); Brown, 913 S.W.2d at 169 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.