Tennessee Supreme Court· 7/19/2002

In Re Valentine

Citations

79 S.W.3d 539
2002 Tenn. LEXIS 338

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that “[sjubstan-tial noncompliance is a question of law which we review de novo with no presumption of correctness.”
holding that the question of substantial noncompliance with the requirements of a permanency plan was a question of law reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness
holding that the question of substantial noncompliance with the requirements of a permanency plan is a question of law reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness
holding that the question of substantial noncompliance with the requirements of a permanency plan was a question of law reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness
holding that the question of substantial noncompliance with the requirements of a permanency plan was a question of law reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness
holding that the question of substantial noncompliance with the requirements of a permanency plan was a question of law reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Janice M. Holder

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

1,129 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named In Re Valentine

28 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.