Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 1-3-113 (2026)
Eighteen-year-olds - Legal responsibility - Tobacco, smoking hemp, or vapor products and alcoholic beverage restrictions on persons under twenty-one (21)
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) Notwithstanding any laws to the contrary, any person who is eighteen (18) years of age or older shall have the same rights, duties, and responsibilities as a person who is twenty-one (21) years of age, except as provided in subsection (b) relative to the rights to purchase, possess, transport, and consume any tobacco, smoking hemp, or vapor products as those terms are defined in title 39 or alcoholic beverages, wine, or beer as those terms are defined in title 57.
- (b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), it is unlawful for any person under twenty-one (21) years of age to purchase, possess, transport or consume tobacco, smoking hemp, or vapor products, alcoholic beverages, wine, or beer, with the following exceptions:
- (1) Any person eighteen (18) years of age or older may transport, possess, sell, or dispense tobacco, smoking hemp, or vapor products, alcoholic beverages, wine, or beer in the course of such person's employment; and
- (2) Section 39-17-705(1) shall not be affected by any provision of subsection (b), it being the intent of the general assembly that such provisions remain lawful and in full force and effect. Any such priest or minister may utilize and administer alcohol or wine at a communion service, bat mitzvah, bar mitzvah, or other similar religious service or ceremony, in accordance with the practices of such denomination or sect.
Amended by 2020 Tenn. Acts, ch. 732, s 2, eff. 1/1/2021.
Amended by 2020 Tenn. Acts, ch. 732, s 1, eff. 1/1/2021.
Acts 1971, ch. 162, § 3; 1979, ch. 413, § 2; T.C.A., §1-313; Acts 1984, ch. 1006, §§ 2, 9, 13-16; 1985, ch. 375, §§ 1-4; 1987, ch. 95, § 1; 1996, ch. 675, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Holloran v. Duncan, 92 F. Supp. 3d 774 (W.D. Tenn. 2015).
Holloran v. Duncan, 92 F. Supp. 3d 774 (W.D. Tenn. 2015). “Tennessee law also prohibits “any person under the age of twenty-one (21) years to have in such person’s possession or to consume any intoxicating liquor or beer for any purpose^]” TenmCode Ann.”
Boyer v. Heimermann, 238 S.W.3d 249 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 1-3-113(a) (2003). This statute "completely emancipated those over eighteen years of age from the control of their parents.”
Nichols v. Atnip, 844 S.W.2d 655 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992). “The enactment of Tenn.Code Ann. § 1-3-113(a) completely emancipated those over eighteen years of age from the control of their parents.”
State v. Ramos, 331 S.W.3d 408 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “” To support his argument on appeal, Appellant cites to several statutes in which the legislature chose to use a specific numerical age in addition to some other qualifying words such as “over,” “above,” and “under.”
State v. Gardner, 626 S.W.2d 721 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981). “TCA § 1-3-105(29), TCA § 1-3-113. At the time of complete emancipation, the parents’ legal duty to support the child is terminated.”
Hawkins v. Hawkins, 797 S.W.2d 897 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990). “00 per week by check, which checks were cashed and the amount was not questioned until November, 1988, when another petition was filed to increase the child support and for contempt which ultimately resulted in the judgment on appeal.”
Morris v. State, 21 S.W.3d 196 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). “Chapter 162 of the Public Acts of 1971, codified in part in section 1-3-113(a) of the Tennessee Code, reduced the age at which one reached majority from age 21 to age 18.”
Binder v. Prager (In Re Prager), 181 B.R. 917 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1995). “1990); see also Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 1-3-113 (Michie 1994) and 34-11-102 (Michie 1991 & Supp.”
Deatherage v. Wallace (In Re Deatherage), 55 B.R. 268 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1985). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 1-3-113 (1985); Weinstein v.”
State of Tennessee v. Benjamin Wheeler Word (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011). “The affidavit of complaint states the following: The undersigned affiant, after being duly sworn according to law, states that the above named defendant, whose name is otherwise unknown to the affiant, committed the offense of TCA 1-3-113, which is Underage Consumption, in…”
Lisa Arnold, an un-emancipated child, by Renate Arnold, Mother/Next-Best Friend v. Randy Kennedy (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013). “They also asserted that jurisdiction was proper in juvenile court, that Lisa had been denied due process and equal protection rights, and that section 34-3-102, et seq, and section 1-3-113(a) were -2- unconstitutionally over-broad.”
Ulysses Durham, Jr. ex rel. Ulysses Durham, III, a minor v. John Noble (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). “In our review of the court’s allocation of fault to Ulysses, we apply the standard set forth in Cardwell: 1 The Legal Responsibility Act of 1971, codified at Tenn. Code Ann. § 1-3-113 , lowered Tennessee’s age of majority from twenty-one to eighteen; thus, for children between…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 1-3-113(a) — 4 cases
Boyer v. Heimermann, 238 S.W.3d 249 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 1-3-113(a) (2003). This statute "completely emancipated those over eighteen years of age from the control of their parents.”
Nichols v. Atnip, 844 S.W.2d 655 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992). “The enactment of Tenn.Code Ann. § 1-3-113(a) completely emancipated those over eighteen years of age from the control of their parents.”
Morris v. State, 21 S.W.3d 196 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). “Chapter 162 of the Public Acts of 1971, codified in part in section 1-3-113(a) of the Tennessee Code, reduced the age at which one reached majority from age 21 to age 18.”
Lisa Arnold, an un-emancipated child, by Renate Arnold, Mother/Next-Best Friend v. Randy Kennedy (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013). “They also asserted that jurisdiction was proper in juvenile court, that Lisa had been denied due process and equal protection rights, and that section 34-3-102, et seq, and section 1-3-113(a) were -2- unconstitutionally over-broad.”
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.