Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-615 (2026)

Violations - Penalties

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

Amended by 2019 Tenn. Acts, ch. 499,s 4, eff. 7/1/2019.

Acts 1985, ch. 478, § 16; 1989, ch. 591, § 111.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2005–2021 · leading case: Sharon Marcel Keisling v. Daniel Kerry Keisling v. Francisco (Frank) Huberto Guzman & wife, Billie Ann Guzman (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).
Sharon Marcel Keisling v. Daniel Kerry Keisling v. Francisco (Frank) Huberto Guzman & wife, Billie Ann Guzman (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “T.C.A § 37-1-615(a) (2001). Accusations of child sexual abuse by one parent against the other parent presents one of the most difficult issues faced by a trial court.”
Werner v. Young (E.D. Tenn. 2021). “§ 37-1-615(a). Even assuming that the reporting statute created a duty, that Defendants Tammy Young, Chris Young, and the Academy breached that duty, and that a breach of the reporting statute amounts to negligence per se, Werner has not pleaded facts showing that Defendants’…”
State of Tennessee v. Michelle Lee Raines (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “§ 37-1-615. The offenses involved acts committed against four children, three of whom lived in their household, by the defendant’s stepson, who was also a minor at the time of the offenses.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-615(a): 2 cases
Sharon Marcel Keisling v. Daniel Kerry Keisling v. Francisco (Frank) Huberto Guzman & wife, Billie Ann Guzman (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “T.C.A § 37-1-615(a) (2001). Accusations of child sexual abuse by one parent against the other parent presents one of the most difficult issues faced by a trial court.”
Werner v. Young (E.D. Tenn. 2021). “§ 37-1-615(a). Even assuming that the reporting statute created a duty, that Defendants Tammy Young, Chris Young, and the Academy breached that duty, and that a breach of the reporting statute amounts to negligence per se, Werner has not pleaded facts showing that Defendants’…”
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.