44 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1903–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Adelsperger v. Adelspergergreen2 sentences2008We have made clear that “we decline to disturb custody decisions unless they are based on a material error of law or the evidence preponderates against them.” Adelsperger v. Adelsperger, 970 S.W.2d 482, 485 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). 2005“Our search for the preponderance of the evidence is tempered by the principle that the trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses; accordingly, such credibility determinations are entitled to great weight on appeal.” Rice v. Rice, 983 S.W.2d 680, 682 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (citations omitted); see also Adelsperger, 970 S.W.2d at 485 . “[W]e decline to disturb custody decisions unless they are based on a material error of law or the evidence preponderates against them.” Adelsperger, 970 S.W.2d at 485 (citations omitted). | 17 | 29 |
Hass v. Knightongreen2 sentences2010See Hass v. Knighton, 676 S.W.2d at 555 ; Adelsperger v. Adelsperger, 970 S.W.2d 482, 485 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997); Gaskill v. Gaskill, 936 S.W.2d 626, 631 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). 2005See Hass v. Knighton, 676 S.W.2d 554, 555 (Tenn. 1984); Gaskill v. Gaskill, 936 S.W.2d 626, 631 (Tenn. Ct. App.1996); Griffin v. Stone, 834 S.W.2d at 301. | 8 | 8 |
Gaskill v. Gaskillgreen2 sentences2010See Hass v. Knighton, 676 S.W.2d at 555 ; Adelsperger v. Adelsperger, 970 S.W.2d 482, 485 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997); Gaskill v. Gaskill, 936 S.W.2d 626, 631 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). 2005See Hass v. Knighton, 676 S.W.2d 554, 555 (Tenn. 1984); Gaskill v. Gaskill, 936 S.W.2d 626, 631 (Tenn. Ct. App.1996); Griffin v. Stone, 834 S.W.2d at 301. | 7 | 7 |
In Re TCDgreen2 sentences2014See In re T.C.D., 261 S.W.3d at 742 (citing Adelsperger, 970 S.W.2d at 485 ). 2013See In re T.C.D., 261 S.W.3d at 742 (citing Adelsperger v. Adelsperger, 970 S.W.2d 482, 485 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997)). | 2 | 2 |
Rice v. Ricegreen2 sentences2005“Our search for the preponderance of the evidence is tempered by the principle that the trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses; accordingly, such credibility determinations are entitled to great weight on appeal.” Rice v. Rice, 983 S.W.2d 680, 682 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (citations omitted); see also Adelsperger, 970 S.W.2d at 485 . “[W]e decline to disturb custody decisions unless they are based on a material error of law or the evidence preponderates against them.” Adelsperger, 970 S.W.2d at 485 (citations omitted). 2004“Our search for the preponderance of the evidence is tempered by the principle that the trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses; accordingly, such credibility determinations are entitled to great weight on appeal.” Rice v. Rice, 983 S.W.2d 680, 682 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (citations omitted); see also Adelsperger, 970 S.W.2d at 485 . “[W]e decline to disturb custody decisions unless they are based on a material error of law or the evidence preponderates against them.” Adelsperger, 970 S.W.2d at 485 (citations omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Eldridge v. Eldridgegreen2 sentences2013In light of the deference given to the trial court’s decision in custody matters, we will not disturb the trial court’s parenting arrangement unless we determine that its decision is based on a material error of law, is against logic or reasoning, or is contrary to the preponderance of the evidence.11 Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d at 85 ; see also S.A.M.D. v. J.P.D., 11 As we have stated, the trial court did not make factual findings, so we will review the evidence in the record to determine where the preponderance lies. 2013Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82, 85 (Tenn. 2001); see also S.A.M.D. v. J.P.D., No. W2011-01256-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 5266194 , at *14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2012); Dobbs v. Dobbs, No. M2011-01523-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 3201938 , at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2012) (citing Adelsperger v. Adelsperger, 970 S.W.2d 482, 485 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997)). | 1 | 3 |
Dinsmore v. Boydgreen2 sentences2012Statutory History in Tennessee In 1858, the General Assembly codified the writ as applicable to civil cases. 8 The original language of the statute described its purpose as the “correction of a material error of fact, where the applicant has had no notice of the proceedings, or was prevented from making defenses by surprise, accident, mistake or fraud, without fault on his part.” Dinsmore v. Boyd, 74 Tenn. 689, 696 (1881) (citing Code §§ 3110, 3116). 2012Statutory History in Tennessee In 1858, the General Assembly codified the writ as applicable to civil cases.8 The original language of the statute described its purpose as the “correction of a material error of fact, where the applicant has had no notice of the proceedings, or was prevented from making defenses by surprise, accident, mistake or fraud, without fault on his part.” Dinsmore v. Boyd, 74 Tenn. 689, 696 (1881) (citing Code §§ 3110, 3116). | 1 | 1 |
Nichols v. Nicholsgreen1 sentence2004Nichols v Nichols, 792 S.W.2d 713, 716 (Tenn. 1990); Adelsperger, 970 S.W.2d at 485 . | 1 | 1 |
Edwards v. Edwardsgreen1 sentence1996Hass v. Knighton, 676 S.W.2d 554, 556 (Tenn. 1984); Edwards v. Edwards, 501 S.W.2d 283, 291 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1973). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Newton v. Cox
green
2 sentences2016Under a means- end review, ―specific evidence is not necessary to show the relationship between the statute and its purposes.‖ Riggs, 941 S.W.2d at 52 (citing Newton, 878 S.W.2d at 110 ). 2015Under a means-end review, “specific evidence is not necessary to show the relationship between the statute and its purposes.” Riggs, 941 S.W.2d at 52 (citing Newton, 878 S.W.2d at 110 ). | 2 | 2015–2016 |
Riggs v. Burson
green
2 sentences2016Under a means- end review, ―specific evidence is not necessary to show the relationship between the statute and its purposes.‖ Riggs, 941 S.W.2d at 52 (citing Newton, 878 S.W.2d at 110 ). 2015Under a means-end review, “specific evidence is not necessary to show the relationship between the statute and its purposes.” Riggs, 941 S.W.2d at 52 (citing Newton, 878 S.W.2d at 110 ). | 2 | 2015–2016 |
State v. Bonds
green
1 sentence2022Id. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Green v. State
green
2 sentences2012Years later, in Green , this Court specifically addressed whether the statutory “writ of error coram nobis ... lie[s] in criminal cases.” Green, 216 S.W.2d at 306 . 2012Years later, in Green, this Court specifically addressed whether the statutory “writ of error coram nobis . . . lie[s] in criminal cases.” Green, 216 S.W.2d at 306 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Griffin v. Stone
green
1 sentence1997See Hass v. Knighton, 676 S.W.2d 554, 555 (Tenn.1984); Gaskill v. Gaskill, 936 S.W.2d 626, 631 (Tenn.Ct.App.1996); Griffin v. Stone, 834 S.W.2d at 301 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences1979The trial judge hearing the petition summarized his findings by use of a modifying and limiting sentence, “The court further finds that the complaints . . ; , would at most constitute harmless error.” The trial judge correctly applied the federal standards as required by Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 . 3 This assignment is overruled. 1979The trial judge hearing the petition summarized his findings by use of a modifying and limiting sentence, “The court further finds that the complaints . . ; , would at most constitute harmless error.” The trial judge correctly applied the federal standards as required by Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 . 3 This assignment is overruled. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Willcox v. Hines
neutral
1 sentence1960This special request is not strictly accurate in that the accurate definition is: “Involuntary manslaughter is where it plainly appears that neither death nor bodily harm was intended by the party killing, and that death was accidentally caused by some unlawful act, or by some act not strictly unlawful in itself, but done in a reckless and unlawful manner and without due caution, and that death was the natural or probable result of such act.” *523 The requested instruction omitted the statement: “or by some act not strictly unlawful in itself, but done in a reckless and unlawful manner and wit | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Lewis v. State
green
2 sentences1960This special request is not strictly accurate in that the accurate definition is: “Involuntary manslaughter is where it plainly appears that neither death nor bodily harm was intended by the party killing, and that death was accidentally caused by some unlawful act, or by some act not strictly unlawful in itself, but done in a reckless and unlawful manner and without due caution, and that death was the natural or probable result of such act.” *523 The requested instruction omitted the statement: “or by some act not strictly unlawful in itself, but done in a reckless and unlawful manner and wit 1960This special request is not strictly accurate in that the accurate definition is: “Involuntary manslaughter is where it plainly appears that neither death nor bodily harm was intended by the party killing, and that death was accidentally caused by some unlawful act, or by some act not strictly unlawful in itself, but done in a reckless and unlawful manner and without due caution, and that death was the natural or probable result of such act.” *523 The requested instruction omitted the statement: “or by some act not strictly unlawful in itself, but done in a reckless and unlawful manner and wit | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Jackson v. Dobbs
green
1 sentence1930In Jackson v. Dobbs, 154 Tenn., 602 , a similar cause of action was prosecuted more than six years after it had accrued. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Jones v. Memphis
neutral
1 sentence1925Jones v. Memphis, 47 S. W., 138 , 101 Tenn., 188 ; Edwards v. Davis, 244 S. W., 359 , 146 Tenn., 615, 623 . | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Edwards v. Davis
neutral
1 sentence1925Jones v. Memphis, 47 S. W., 138 , 101 Tenn., 188 ; Edwards v. Davis, 244 S. W., 359 , 146 Tenn., 615, 623 . | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Caskey v. City of La Belle
neutral
1 sentence1903In Railroad Co. v. Lindamood, 109 Tenn., 411, 412 , 74 S. W., 113 , we approved the following rule: “While in negligence cases the condition of the appliances or premises at the time or place of injury is the material inquiry, evidence of conditions before or after the accident may be received, where it is also shown that the conditions testified to remain unchanged down to the occurrence of the injuries or to the time to which the evidence relates. | 1 | 1903–1903 |
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.