7 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Rgbgreen1 sentence2016Factors to be considered are the parent‟s 2007); State v. Anonymous, 425 A.2d 939, 943 (Conn. 1979); In re R.E.S., 978 A.2d 182 , 189 (D.C. 2009); J.B. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children and Families, 170 So. 3d 780, 790 (Fla. 2015); In re A.R.A.S., 629 S.E.2d 822, 825 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006); In re RGB, 229 P.3d 1066, 1090 (Haw. 2010); In re M.F., 762 N.E.2d 701 , 709 (Ill. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Anonymousgreen1 sentence2016Factors to be considered are the parent‟s 2007); State v. Anonymous, 425 A.2d 939, 943 (Conn. 1979); In re R.E.S., 978 A.2d 182 , 189 (D.C. 2009); J.B. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children and Families, 170 So. 3d 780, 790 (Fla. 2015); In re A.R.A.S., 629 S.E.2d 822, 825 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006); In re RGB, 229 P.3d 1066, 1090 (Haw. 2010); In re M.F., 762 N.E.2d 701 , 709 (Ill. | 1 | 1 |
In Re ARASgreen1 sentence2016Factors to be considered are the parent‟s 2007); State v. Anonymous, 425 A.2d 939, 943 (Conn. 1979); In re R.E.S., 978 A.2d 182 , 189 (D.C. 2009); J.B. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children and Families, 170 So. 3d 780, 790 (Fla. 2015); In re A.R.A.S., 629 S.E.2d 822, 825 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006); In re RGB, 229 P.3d 1066, 1090 (Haw. 2010); In re M.F., 762 N.E.2d 701 , 709 (Ill. | 1 | 1 |
J.B., Etc. v. Florida Department of Children and Familiesgreen1 sentence2016Factors to be considered are the parent‟s 2007); State v. Anonymous, 425 A.2d 939, 943 (Conn. 1979); In re R.E.S., 978 A.2d 182 , 189 (D.C. 2009); J.B. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children and Families, 170 So. 3d 780, 790 (Fla. 2015); In re A.R.A.S., 629 S.E.2d 822, 825 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006); In re RGB, 229 P.3d 1066, 1090 (Haw. 2010); In re M.F., 762 N.E.2d 701 , 709 (Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Barber & McMurry, Inc. v. Top-Flite Development Corp.green1 sentence2007Corp. Inc., 720 S.W.2d 469, 471 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986) (Defense counsel knew the trial date, but elected not to attend trial because he had another trial scheduled in a different county.). -3- conduct that is flagrant and unexplained.4 This view of willfulness finds further support from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, setting forth the willfulness standard which our Supreme Court adopted in Barbee. | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Muslergreen2 sentences2007Barbee, 689 S.W.2d at 866 (quoting the three-factor analysis from Davis v. Musler, 713 F.2d 907, 915 (2d Cir. 1983)). 2 Barbee, 689 S.W.2d at 865, 868 (defendant’s default not willful, although default was due to defense counsel’s failure to check his mail while out of the country); Evans v. Wintrow, No. M2003-00788-COA-R3-CV, 2005 WL 2416634 , at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2005) (plaintiff counsel’s failure to check his mail while out of state, which resulted in dismissal for failure to prosecute, was “sloppy and careless,” but not willful); see Campbell v. Archer, 555 S.W.2d 110, 111 , 112 2007Barbee, 689 S.W.2d at 866 (quoting the three-factor analysis from Davis v. Musler, 713 F.2d 907, 915 (2d Cir. 1983)). 2 Barbee, 689 S.W.2d at 865, 868 (defendant’s default not willful, although default was due to defense counsel’s failure to check his mail while out of the country); Evans v. Wintrow, No. M2003-00788-COA-R3-CV, 2005 WL 2416634 , at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2005) (plaintiff counsel’s failure to check his mail while out of state, which resulted in dismissal for failure to prosecute, was “sloppy and careless,” but not willful); see Campbell v. Archer, 555 S.W.2d 110, 111 , 112 | 1 | 1 |
Campbell v. Archergreen2 sentences2007Barbee, 689 S.W.2d at 866 (quoting the three-factor analysis from Davis v. Musler, 713 F.2d 907, 915 (2d Cir. 1983)). 2 Barbee, 689 S.W.2d at 865, 868 (defendant’s default not willful, although default was due to defense counsel’s failure to check his mail while out of the country); Evans v. Wintrow, No. M2003-00788-COA-R3-CV, 2005 WL 2416634 , at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2005) (plaintiff counsel’s failure to check his mail while out of state, which resulted in dismissal for failure to prosecute, was “sloppy and careless,” but not willful); see Campbell v. Archer, 555 S.W.2d 110, 111 , 112 2007Barbee, 689 S.W.2d at 866 (quoting the three-factor analysis from Davis v. Musler, 713 F.2d 907, 915 (2d Cir. 1983)). 2 Barbee, 689 S.W.2d at 865, 868 (defendant’s default not willful, although default was due to defense counsel’s failure to check his mail while out of the country); Evans v. Wintrow, No. M2003-00788-COA-R3-CV, 2005 WL 2416634 , at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2005) (plaintiff counsel’s failure to check his mail while out of state, which resulted in dismissal for failure to prosecute, was “sloppy and careless,” but not willful); see Campbell v. Archer, 555 S.W.2d 110, 111 , 112 | 1 | 1 |
Tennessee Department of Human Services v. Barbeegreen2 sentences2007Barbee, 689 S.W.2d at 866 (quoting the three-factor analysis from Davis v. Musler, 713 F.2d 907, 915 (2d Cir. 1983)). 2 Barbee, 689 S.W.2d at 865, 868 (defendant’s default not willful, although default was due to defense counsel’s failure to check his mail while out of the country); Evans v. Wintrow, No. M2003-00788-COA-R3-CV, 2005 WL 2416634 , at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2005) (plaintiff counsel’s failure to check his mail while out of state, which resulted in dismissal for failure to prosecute, was “sloppy and careless,” but not willful); see Campbell v. Archer, 555 S.W.2d 110, 111 , 112 2007Barbee, 689 S.W.2d at 866 (quoting the three-factor analysis from Davis v. Musler, 713 F.2d 907, 915 (2d Cir. 1983)). 2 Barbee, 689 S.W.2d at 865, 868 (defendant’s default not willful, although default was due to defense counsel’s failure to check his mail while out of the country); Evans v. Wintrow, No. M2003-00788-COA-R3-CV, 2005 WL 2416634 , at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2005) (plaintiff counsel’s failure to check his mail while out of state, which resulted in dismissal for failure to prosecute, was “sloppy and careless,” but not willful); see Campbell v. Archer, 555 S.W.2d 110, 111 , 112 | 1 | 1 |
Masada Investment Corp. v. Allengreen1 sentence1999See Masada, 697 S.W.2d at 334 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson
red
2 sentences2024Many of those courts “settled on some variation” of the three-factor test first formulated by the United States Supreme Court in Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97 , 106–07 (1971). 2024Many of those courts “settled on some variation” of the three-factor test first formulated by the United States Supreme Court in Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97 , 106–07 (1971). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Henry v. Goins
green
1 sentence2017Since 2003, when the Supreme Court adopted the three-factor test in Henry v. Goins, 104 S.W.3d at 481 , “Tennessee courts have wrestled with the apparent incompatibility of ‘excusable neglect’ and ‘willfulness.’” Pryor v. Rivergate Meadows Apartment Assocs. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
In Re RES
green
1 sentence2016Factors to be considered are the parent‟s 2007); State v. Anonymous, 425 A.2d 939, 943 (Conn. 1979); In re R.E.S., 978 A.2d 182 , 189 (D.C. 2009); J.B. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children and Families, 170 So. 3d 780, 790 (Fla. 2015); In re A.R.A.S., 629 S.E.2d 822, 825 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006); In re RGB, 229 P.3d 1066, 1090 (Haw. 2010); In re M.F., 762 N.E.2d 701 , 709 (Ill. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
In Re MF
green
1 sentence2016Factors to be considered are the parent‟s 2007); State v. Anonymous, 425 A.2d 939, 943 (Conn. 1979); In re R.E.S., 978 A.2d 182 , 189 (D.C. 2009); J.B. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children and Families, 170 So. 3d 780, 790 (Fla. 2015); In re A.R.A.S., 629 S.E.2d 822, 825 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006); In re RGB, 229 P.3d 1066, 1090 (Haw. 2010); In re M.F., 762 N.E.2d 701 , 709 (Ill. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty.
green
1 sentence2016In Lassiter , the United States Supreme Court identified a three-factor test for determining, on a case-by-case basis, whether the appointment of counsel is constitutionally required. 452 U.S. at 27-31, 101 S.Ct. 2153 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Keck v. Nationwide Systems, Inc.
green
2 sentences2007Barbee, 689 S.W.2d at 866 (quoting the three-factor analysis from Davis v. Musler, 713 F.2d 907, 915 (2d Cir. 1983)). 2 Barbee, 689 S.W.2d at 865, 868 (defendant’s default not willful, although default was due to defense counsel’s failure to check his mail while out of the country); Evans v. Wintrow, No. M2003-00788-COA-R3-CV, 2005 WL 2416634 , at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2005) (plaintiff counsel’s failure to check his mail while out of state, which resulted in dismissal for failure to prosecute, was “sloppy and careless,” but not willful); see Campbell v. Archer, 555 S.W.2d 110, 111 , 112 2007Barbee, 689 S.W.2d at 866 (quoting the three-factor analysis from Davis v. Musler, 713 F.2d 907, 915 (2d Cir. 1983)). 2 Barbee, 689 S.W.2d at 865, 868 (defendant’s default not willful, although default was due to defense counsel’s failure to check his mail while out of the country); Evans v. Wintrow, No. M2003-00788-COA-R3-CV, 2005 WL 2416634 , at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2005) (plaintiff counsel’s failure to check his mail while out of state, which resulted in dismissal for failure to prosecute, was “sloppy and careless,” but not willful); see Campbell v. Archer, 555 S.W.2d 110, 111 , 112 | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.