Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-2101 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

As used in parts 20-29 of this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:

Acts 2010, ch. 901, § 1.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2001–2024 · leading case: LeTellier v. LeTellier, 40 S.W.3d 490 (Tenn. 2001).
LeTellier v. LeTellier, 40 S.W.3d 490 (Tenn. 2001). · cites it 2× “The trial court's order dismissing the petition to modify the District of Columbia's order is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are taxed to Appellee, Teresa B.”
Letellier v. Letellier, 40 S.W.3d 490 (Tenn. 2001). · cites it 2× “The trial court’s order dismissing the petition to modify the District of Columbia’s order is affirmed.”
Deborah Vivien v. Keith W. Campbell (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 8× “11 See T.C.A. §§ 36-5-2101 et seq; McQuade, 2010 WL 4940386 , at *10.”
State, ex rel., Tynesha April Dior Moody v. Damond Julian Roker (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 4× “§ 36-5 - 2101(24), and “responding state” is defined as “a state in which a petition or comparable pleading for support or to determine parentage of a child is filed or to which a petition or comparable pleading is forwarded for filing from another state or a foreign country,”…”
Geret Jesse Johnston v. Susan Harwell (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 6× “The Hawai’i Decree is a “child support order” as defined in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-2101 (2). 2. Hawai’i was the “issuing state” of the child support order as defined in Tenn.”
Jessica Hooper McQuade (now Burnett) v. Michael Vincent McQuade (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “T.C.A. § 36-5-2101(2) (2002). A “support order” 12 We note that the record does not indicate a significant connection to Tennessee or substantial evidence in Tennessee.”
Richard John Jolly v. Lynette Suzanne Jolly (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 5× “This argument appears to be based on T.C.A. § 36-5-2101(4), which defines “home state.”
Aragorn LaFayette Earls v. Jill Andrea Mendoza (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “” T.C.A. § 36-5-2101(4) (2005). The “issuing state” is the state in which a court issues a support order, and the “issuing tribunal” is the court that issues the support order.”
State of Tennessee ex rel. Billie Martin v. Gregory Kalmon (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “The Comments to Official Text for Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-2101 (2005) provide, in pertinent part, as follows: Subsections (7) and (8) define “initiating State” and “initiating tribunal” similarly to RURESA § 2(d).”
Marie Soledad Torrico (Morales) v. David Randal Smithson (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-2101 (19)(B). Bolivia, however, is not a reciprocating foreign jurisdiction.”
State ex rel. Laronda Johnson v. Jacob C. Morton (Tenn. Ct. App. 2024). “§ 36-5-2101(27) (2021) (defining “[s]upport enforcement agency”).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-2101(19) — 2 cases
LeTellier v. LeTellier, 40 S.W.3d 490 (Tenn. 2001). “The trial court's order dismissing the petition to modify the District of Columbia's order is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are taxed to Appellee, Teresa B.”
Letellier v. Letellier, 40 S.W.3d 490 (Tenn. 2001). “The trial court’s order dismissing the petition to modify the District of Columbia’s order is affirmed.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-2101(2) — 2 cases
Deborah Vivien v. Keith W. Campbell (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). “11 See T.C.A. §§ 36-5-2101 et seq; McQuade, 2010 WL 4940386 , at *10.”
Jessica Hooper McQuade (now Burnett) v. Michael Vincent McQuade (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). “T.C.A. § 36-5-2101(2) (2002). A “support order” 12 We note that the record does not indicate a significant connection to Tennessee or substantial evidence in Tennessee.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-2101(27) — 1 case
State ex rel. Laronda Johnson v. Jacob C. Morton (Tenn. Ct. App. 2024). “§ 36-5-2101(27) (2021) (defining “[s]upport enforcement agency”).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-2101(4) — 2 cases
Richard John Jolly v. Lynette Suzanne Jolly (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “This argument appears to be based on T.C.A. § 36-5-2101(4), which defines “home state.”
Aragorn LaFayette Earls v. Jill Andrea Mendoza (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). “” T.C.A. § 36-5-2101(4) (2005). The “issuing state” is the state in which a court issues a support order, and the “issuing tribunal” is the court that issues the support order.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-2101(9) — 3 cases
Aragorn LaFayette Earls v. Jill Andrea Mendoza (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). “” T.C.A. § 36-5-2101(4) (2005). The “issuing state” is the state in which a court issues a support order, and the “issuing tribunal” is the court that issues the support order.”
Deborah Vivien v. Keith W. Campbell (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). “11 See T.C.A. §§ 36-5-2101 et seq; McQuade, 2010 WL 4940386 , at *10.”
Jessica Hooper McQuade (now Burnett) v. Michael Vincent McQuade (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). “T.C.A. § 36-5-2101(2) (2002). A “support order” 12 We note that the record does not indicate a significant connection to Tennessee or substantial evidence in Tennessee.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.