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 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 448 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 In Re Frr, III.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | In Re Frr, III Anchor | green | “whether the trial court's findings, made under a clear and convincing standard, are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.” | 139 |
| 2 | In Re Drinnon | green | “this right is not absolute and parental rights may be terminated if there is clear and convincing evidence justifying such termination under the applicable statute.” | 100 |
| 3 | Keisling v. Keisling | green | “parents have a fundamental constitutional interest in the care and custody of their children under both the united states and tennessee constitutions.” | 96 |
| 4 | In Re Audrey S. | green | “a preponderance of the evidence, not by clear and convincing evidence.” | 61 |
| 5 | In Re Valentine | green | “to terminate parental rights, a court must determine that clear and convincing evidence proves not only that statutory grounds exist but also that termination is in the child's best interest.” | 43 |
| 6 | In re Joseph F. | green | “began on march 8, 2011, and concluded on july 7, 2011, the day prior to the filing of the termination petition” | 9 |
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.