265 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 2004–2026 120 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 |
|---|---|---|
White v. Moodygreen2 sentences2026In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d at 523 . “[D]epending upon the circumstances of a particular child and a particular parent, the consideration of one factor may very well dictate the outcome of the analysis.” In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d at 878 (citing White v. Moody, 171 S.W.3d at 194 ). 2026In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d at 523 . “[D]epending upon the circumstances of a particular child and a particular parent, the consideration - 27 - of one factor may very well dictate the outcome of the analysis.” In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d at 878 (citing White v. Moody, 171 S.W.3d at 194 ). | 32 | 151 |
In Re Gabriella D.green2 sentences2025Although in some circumstances “the consideration of one factor may very well dictate the outcome of the analysis,” In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d at 878 , a court is still obligated to consider “all the factors and all the proof.” In re Gabriella D., 531 S.W.3d 662, 682 (Tenn. 2017). 2025Although in some circumstances “the consideration of one factor may very well dictate the outcome of the analysis,” In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d at 878 , a court is still obligated to consider “all the factors and all the proof.” In re Gabriella D., 531 S.W.3d 662, 682 (Tenn. 2017). | 26 | 55 |
In Re Audrey S.green2 sentences2026In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d at 523 . “[D]epending upon the circumstances of a particular child and a particular parent, the consideration of one factor may very well dictate the outcome of the analysis.” In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d at 878 (citing White v. Moody, 171 S.W.3d at 194 ). 2026In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d at 523 . “[D]epending upon the circumstances of a particular child and a particular parent, the consideration - 27 - of one factor may very well dictate the outcome of the analysis.” In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d at 878 (citing White v. Moody, 171 S.W.3d at 194 ). | 24 | 172 |
In Re Marrgreen2 sentences2026See id. “[T]his factor may, depending upon the circumstances of the case, be an important part of the court’s best interests determination and ‘may very well dictate the outcome of the analysis.’” Solima v. Solima, No. M2014-01452-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 4594134 , at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 30, 2015) (quoting In re Marr, 194 S.W.3d 490, 499 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005)). 2018Thus, depending upon the circumstances of a particular child and a particular parent, the consideration of one factor may very well dictate the outcome of the analysis. -7- In re Marr, 194 S.W.3d 490, 499 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). | 11 | 13 |
In Re: Kaliyah S.green2 sentences2022The factual findings made in connection with the best interest analysis “must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, not by clear and convincing evidence.” In re Kaliyah S., 455 S.W.3d 533, 555 (Tenn., 2015) (citing In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d at 861 ). 2021White v. Moody, 171 S.W.3d 187, 194 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994). - 14 - Furthermore, the Tennessee Supreme Court has instructed that: Facts considered in the best interest analysis must be proven by “a preponderance of the evidence, not by clear and convincing evidence.” In re Kaliyah S., 455 S.W.3d 533, 555 (Tenn. 2015) (citing In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838, 861 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005)). | 4 | 6 |
In Re the Adoption of D.P.E.green2 sentences2015In re the Adoption of D.P.E., 271 S.W.3d 670, 676 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (citations omitted). 2015In re the Adoption of D.P.E., 271 S.W.3d 670, 676 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (citations omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Hale v. Ostrowgreen2 sentences2013Hale, 166 S.W.3d 713, 719 (citing Haynes, 883 S.W.2d at 612 ). 21 Anderson County’s Statement of Issue #1 is phrased in terms of the findings of both negligence and proximate cause, however, its entire argument addresses only the foreseeability prong of the proximate cause test. 22 Even if the parties agreed that a misclassification of Mr. King was the causation in fact of his injuries, our subsequent analysis of proximate causation and the outcome of our inquiry would be the same. -15- The first and second requirements of the proximate cause analysis have received little attention by the part 2013Hale, 166 S.W.3d 713, 719 (citing Haynes, 883 S.W.2d at 612 ). 21 Anderson County’s Statement of Issue #1 is phrased in terms of the findings of both negligence and proximate cause, however, its entire argument addresses only the foreseeability prong of the proximate cause test. 22 Even if the parties agreed that a misclassification of Mr. King was the causation in fact of his injuries, our subsequent analysis of proximate causation and the outcome of our inquiry would be the same. -15- The first and second requirements of the proximate cause analysis have received little attention by the part | 2 | 2 |
State v. Cabbagered1 sentence2022State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bledsoegreen1 sentence2019State v. Bledsoe, 226 S.W.3d 349, 354-55 (Tenn. 2007). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hatchergreen1 sentence2014State v. Hatcher, 310 S.W.3d 788, 808 (Tenn. 2010). | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Stategreen2 sentences2013The Court of Appeals in Gillespie cited Harris v. State, 61 N.J. 585 , 297 A.2d 561, 563 (1972), for the rule that prison officials would have to have "prior warning” or have been "made aware of any circumstances calling for special precautions on their part” to be liable for negligence in cases of inmate-on-inmate attacks. . 2013The Court of Appeals in Gillespie cited Harris v. State, 61 N.J. 585 , 297 A.2d 561, 563 (1972), for the rule that prison officials would have to have "prior warning” or have been "made aware of any circumstances calling for special precautions on their part” to be liable for negligence in cases of inmate-on-inmate attacks. . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Landgreen1 sentence2004Cline, No. M2000-01674-CCA-R3-CD (quoting State v. Land, 34 S.W.3d 516, 530 (Tenn. Crim. | 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 Carrington H.
green
2 sentences2026In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d at 523 . “[D]epending upon the circumstances of a particular child and a particular parent, the consideration of one factor may very well dictate the outcome of the analysis.” In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d at 878 (citing White v. Moody, 171 S.W.3d at 194 ). 2026In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d at 523 . “[D]epending upon the circumstances of a particular child and a particular parent, the consideration - 27 - of one factor may very well dictate the outcome of the analysis.” In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d at 878 (citing White v. Moody, 171 S.W.3d at 194 ). | 50 | 2017–2026 |
Burden v. Burden
green
2 sentences2025Id. at 393 (citing In re Marr, 194 S.W.3d 490, 499 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005)). 2024Id. at 393 (citing In re Marr, 194 S.W.3d 490, 499 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005)). | 2 | 2024–2025 |
Haynes v. Hamilton County
green
2 sentences2013Hale, 166 S.W.3d 713, 719 (citing Haynes, 883 S.W.2d at 612 ). 21 Anderson County’s Statement of Issue #1 is phrased in terms of the findings of both negligence and proximate cause, however, its entire argument addresses only the foreseeability prong of the proximate cause test. 22 Even if the parties agreed that a misclassification of Mr. King was the causation in fact of his injuries, our subsequent analysis of proximate causation and the outcome of our inquiry would be the same. -15- The first and second requirements of the proximate cause analysis have received little attention by the part 2013Hale, 166 S.W.3d 713, 719 (citing Haynes, 883 S.W.2d at 612 ). 21 Anderson County’s Statement of Issue #1 is phrased in terms of the findings of both negligence and proximate cause, however, its entire argument addresses only the foreseeability prong of the proximate cause test. 22 Even if the parties agreed that a misclassification of Mr. King was the causation in fact of his injuries, our subsequent analysis of proximate causation and the outcome of our inquiry would be the same. -15- The first and second requirements of the proximate cause analysis have received little attention by the part | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Rheaetta F. Wilson v. Americare Systems, Inc.
green
2 sentences2013Substantial Factor The first requirement is that the defendant’s conduct be a “‘substantial factor’ in bringing about the harm complained of.” Wilson, 397 S.W.3d at 558 . 2013Substantial Factor The first requirement is that the defendant’s conduct be a “‘substantial factor’ in bringing about the harm complained of.” Wilson, 397 S.W.3d at 558 . | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Paul T. Davis v. State of Tennessee
green
1 sentence2022Davis, 261 S.W.3d at 22 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Willis v. Tennessee Department of Correction
green
1 sentence2008Willis, 113 S.W.3d at 714 . | 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.
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.