Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 1-3-104 (2026)
Tense - Gender - Number of words
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) Words used in this code in the past or present tense include the future, and the future tense includes the present.
- (b) Words importing the masculine gender include the feminine and neuter, except when the contrary intention is manifest.
- (c) Singular includes the plural and the plural the singular, except when the contrary intention is manifest.
Code 1858, § 50; Shan., § 62; mod. Code 1932, §14; modified; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 1-304.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1981–2022 · leading case: Jones v. Mulkey, 620 S.W.2d 498 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981).
Jones v. Mulkey, 620 S.W.2d 498 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981). “Upon appeal, in addition to this insistence, he contends that in deciding Crisp we overlooked T.C.A. 1-3-104 which provides as to words used in the Code that “singular includes the plural .”
Sandra Ann Pippin v. Christina Michelle Pippin (Tenn. Ct. App. 2020). “Do the Tennessee parentage presumption statutes, read in a gender-neutral way as required by T.C.A. §1-3-104 and by established constitutional law, provide standing for an unmarried adult who is not related to a child by biology or adoption, particularly where, as here, that…”
Pamela Estelle Harrison v. Shannon Nicole Harrison (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021). “In so holding, the trial court interpreted the artificial insemination statute in connection with Tenn. Code Ann. § 1-3-104 (b) and the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Obergefell v.”
Christina Jane Compher v. Dana Janelle Whitefield (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 1-3-104 (b). The Court did not agree that recourse to section 1-3-104 was “required or necessary to resolve the issue presented.”
Sabrina Renae Witt v. Erica Christine Witt (2018). “The Attorney General asserted that the statute could be read constitutionally, however, by employing Tenn. Code Ann. § 1-3-104 , which provides: 1-3-104.”
Sandra Ann Pippin v. Christina Michelle Pippin (Dissent) (Tenn. Ct. App. 2020). “27, 2018), this Court noted that “[t]he Attorney General asserted that the statute could be read constitutionally, however, by employing Tenn. Code Ann. § 1-3-104 , which -3- provides: .”
Cedra Deanntre Potts (Taylor) v. Starr Anastasia Potts (2021). “Although this statute uses gender-specific language, the court applied Tenn. Code Ann. § 1-3-104 (b), which permits a gender-neutral construction “except when the contrary intention is manifest.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 1-3-104(b) — 3 cases
Sandra Ann Pippin v. Christina Michelle Pippin (Tenn. Ct. App. 2020). “Do the Tennessee parentage presumption statutes, read in a gender-neutral way as required by T.C.A. §1-3-104 and by established constitutional law, provide standing for an unmarried adult who is not related to a child by biology or adoption, particularly where, as here, that…”
Pamela Estelle Harrison v. Shannon Nicole Harrison (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021). “In so holding, the trial court interpreted the artificial insemination statute in connection with Tenn. Code Ann. § 1-3-104 (b) and the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Obergefell v.”
Christina Jane Compher v. Dana Janelle Whitefield (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 1-3-104 (b). The Court did not agree that recourse to section 1-3-104 was “required or necessary to resolve the issue presented.”
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.