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.
6 Tennessee opinions name it 1 courts 2007–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Andrew K. Armbrister v. Melissa H. Armbristergreen2 sentences2016Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d at 704 . “[M]erely showing that the existing arrangement [is] unworkable for the parties is sufficient to satisfy the material change of circumstance test” for residential parenting schedule modification. 2014Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-101(a)(2)(C) “reflects the General Assembly’s ‘policy decision to make it easier to establish that a material change in circumstances has occurred’ when a party seeks to modify a residential parenting schedule.” Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d at 703 (Tenn. 2013) (quoting Boyer v. Heimermann, 238 S.W.3d 249, 259 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007)). | 1 | 2 |
Neal Lovlace v. Timothy Kevin Copleygreen1 sentence2019Rose, 2006 WL 2390980 , at *2 n.3; see also Lovlace v. Copley, 418 S.W.3d 1, 32 (Tenn. 2013) (holding that “evidence that the parties’ relationship has degenerated to the point that an existing visitation arrangement has proven unworkable in a significant way is sufficient to establish a material change”). | 1 | 1 |
Dana Jo Stricklin v. Jerone Trent Stricklingreen1 sentence2018“If the issue before the court is a modification of the court’s prior decree pertaining to a residential parenting schedule, then the petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence a material change of circumstance affecting the child’s best interest.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101 (a)(2)(C). “‘The concept of requiring a parent seeking modification to prove a material change in circumstances originated out of this Court’s recognition that existing parenting orders are considered res judicata on the facts as they existed at the time the most recent order was entered.’” Stricklin v. Stric | 1 | 1 |
Boyer v. Heimermanngreen1 sentence2014Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-101(a)(2)(C) “reflects the General Assembly’s ‘policy decision to make it easier to establish that a material change in circumstances has occurred’ when a party seeks to modify a residential parenting schedule.” Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d at 703 (Tenn. 2013) (quoting Boyer v. Heimermann, 238 S.W.3d 249, 259 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007)). | 1 | 1 |
Kendrick v. Shoemakegreen1 sentence2007Kendrick v. Shoemake, 90 S.W.3d 566, 570 (Tenn.2002) (quoting Blair v. Badenhope, 77 S.W.3d 137, 150 (Tenn.2002)). | 1 | 1 |
Blair v. Badenhopegreen1 sentence2007Kendrick v. Shoemake, 90 S.W.3d 566, 570 (Tenn.2002) (quoting Blair v. Badenhope, 77 S.W.3d 137, 150 (Tenn.2002)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Massey-Holt v. Holt
green
1 sentence2008By its terms, however, section (a)(2)(C) only applies “[i]f the issue before the court is a modification . . . pertaining to a residential parenting schedule,” and section (a)(2)(B) applies “[i]f the issue before the court is a modification . . . pertaining to custody.” As discussed in Massey-Holt, 255 S.W.3d at 607 , the statute creates a different standard for each situation. -23- suggest that Mrs. F had instructed A.N.F. to make such statements.14 A.N.F. was examined at an emergency room, but no evidence of abuse was discovered. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.