7 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Merriman v. Smithgreen1 sentence2011In deciding whether to allow amendments, the trial court should consider factors such as “undue delay in filing; lack of notice to the opposing party; bad faith by the moving party, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of amendment.” Cumulus Broad., Inc., 226 S.W.3d at 374 (quoting Merriman v. Smith, 599 S.W.2d 548, 559 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979)). | 1 | 1 |
Aaron v. Aarongreen1 sentence2002While there is no formula for determining the amount of alimony, the court should consider the factors set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-101(d)(1)(A)-(L).3 Clayton v. Clayton, No. E2000-1413-COA-R3-CV, 2001 Tenn. App. LEXIS 399 , at *11 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 30, 2001); Aaron v. Aaron, 909 S.W.2d 408, 410 (Tenn. 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Logan v. Winsteadgreen1 sentence2001Upon remand the Court should consider the factors 1 Logan v. Winstead, 23 S.W.3d 297, 299 (Tenn. 200 0). -2- set forth in Logan. | 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. Hooper
green
2 sentences2003Id. at 10-12 . 2002Id. at 10-12 . | 2 | 2002–2003 |
Owens v. Owens
green
1 sentence2017Owens, 241 S.W.3d at 486 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Cumulus Broadcasting, Inc. v. Shim
green
1 sentence2011In deciding whether to allow amendments, the trial court should consider factors such as “undue delay in filing; lack of notice to the opposing party; bad faith by the moving party, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of amendment.” Cumulus Broad., Inc., 226 S.W.3d at 374 (quoting Merriman v. Smith, 599 S.W.2d 548, 559 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979)). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Kincaid v. Kincaid
green
1 sentence1998Kincaid, 912 S.W.2d at 144 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.