Dana Jo Stricklin v. Jerone Trent Stricklin

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the material change “inquiry is not required when parties agree to modify a parenting plan”
• holding that trial courts are not required 6 See Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685, 697–704 (Tenn. 2013
• holding Father’s “attempt to repudiate the agreement post-judgment [did] not invalidate [his previously established] consent”
• “On appeal, we review a trial court’s decision regarding a motion to alter or amend a judgment under an abuse of discretion standard.”
• “Because [father’s] motion was filed within thirty days from the entry of the ... order, we regard his motion as a request for relief under Rule 59.”
• “Because [father’s] motion was filed within thirty days from the entry of the . . . order, we regard his motion as a request for relief under Rule 59.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).