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.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 12 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Herrera v. Herrera.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Herrera v. Herrera Anchor | green | “we are disinclined to disturb the trial courts decision unless the distribution lacks proper evidentiary support or results in some error of law or misapplication of statutory requirements and procedures.” | 7 |
| 2 | Manis v. Manis | green | “ordinarily defer to the trial judges decision unless it is inconsistent with the factors in tenn. code ann. 36-4-121 (c) or is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.