Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-13-102 (2026)
Actions against state prohibited
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) No court in the state shall have any power, jurisdiction or authority to entertain any suit against the state, or against any officer of the state acting by authority of the state, with a view to reach the state, its treasury, funds or property, and all such suits shall be dismissed as to the state or such officers, on motion, plea or demurrer of the law officer of the state, or counsel employed for the state.
- (b) No statutory or other provision authorizing the University of Tennessee and its board of trustees to sue and be sued shall constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity.
Acts 1873, ch. 13, § 2; Shan., § 4507; Code 1932, § 8634; Acts 1977, ch. 170, § 1; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 20-1702.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 196
cases (60 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Morgan, 263 S.W.3d 827 (Tenn. 2008).
Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Morgan, 263 S.W.3d 827 (Tenn. 2008). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 20-13-102 (1994). This concept of sovereign immunity generally extends to state agencies and state officers acting in their official capacity.”
David R. Smith v. The Tennessee Nat'l Guard, 551 S.W.3d 702 (2018). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-13-102 (a) (2009). Both provisions clearly reserve to the General Assembly exclusive power to waive Tennessee's sovereign immunity and to prescribe the terms and conditions under which the State may be sued, " 'including when, in what forum, and in what…”
Campbell v. Sundquist, 926 S.W.2d 250 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). “T.C.A. § 20-13-102 (1992) prohibits courts from entertaining suits against the state "or against any officer of the state acting by authority of the state, with a view to reach the state, its treasury, funds or property.”
Austin v. City of Memphis, 684 S.W.2d 624 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984). “The general obligations of the State involve its treasury, funds or property as referred to in T.C.A. § 20-13-102 (1980). The purposes for which the authority was created, as stated by the legislative intent in T.”
Whitaker v. Whirlpool Corp., 32 S.W.3d 222 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). “There is no allegation of willful, malicious, or criminal acts on her part, and she is entitled to the immunity pursuant to T.C.A. § 20-13-102(a) (1994), which provides: 20-13-102.”
Stewart v. State, 33 S.W.3d 785 (Tenn. 2000). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 20-13-102(a) (1994), 2 this jurisdiction is limited only to those claims specified in Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(a).”
Gerald Morgan v. Bd. of Prof. Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tenn., 63 F.4th 510 (6th Cir. 2023). “2d at 381; Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-13-102 (a). Therefore, the only issue is whether the Ex parte Young exception applies to Morgan’s suit against Garrett.”
Spencer v. Cardwell, 937 S.W.2d 422 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). “2d 868, 871 (1956), our supreme court interpreted T.CA § 20-13-102 as prohibiting the courts of this state from entertaining a declaratory judgment action against a state officer.”
Winslow Watson v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., Tennessee Bd. of Paroles, CCA, & Jody Benjamin, 970 S.W.2d 494 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 20-13-102(a) (1994). Next, the court held that the doctrine of sovereign immunity and Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-13-102(a) apply to actions brought pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act.”
Williams v. Nicely, 230 S.W.3d 385 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “” T.C.A. § 20-13-102. Accordingly, it is barred under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, and the trial court erred in declining to dismiss the suit on that basis.”
Stokes v. Univ. of Tenn. at Martin, 737 S.W.2d 545 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987). “T.C.A. § 20-13-102 provides: 20-13-102. Actions against state prohibited.”
Mullins v. State, 320 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2010). “2004); see also Tenn.Code Ann. § 20-13-102(a). The legislature did not remove immunity for all claims against the State, but only those claims specified in section 9-8-307(a).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-13-102(1980) — 1 case
N. Telecom, Inc. v. Taylor, 781 S.W.2d 837 (Tenn. 1989).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-13-102(a) — 44 cases
Whitaker v. Whirlpool Corp., 32 S.W.3d 222 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). “There is no allegation of willful, malicious, or criminal acts on her part, and she is entitled to the immunity pursuant to T.C.A. § 20-13-102(a) (1994), which provides: 20-13-102.”
Stewart v. State, 33 S.W.3d 785 (Tenn. 2000). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 20-13-102(a) (1994), 2 this jurisdiction is limited only to those claims specified in Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(a).”
Winslow Watson v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., Tennessee Bd. of Paroles, CCA, & Jody Benjamin, 970 S.W.2d 494 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 20-13-102(a) (1994). Next, the court held that the doctrine of sovereign immunity and Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-13-102(a) apply to actions brought pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act.”
Mullins v. State, 320 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2010). “2004); see also Tenn.Code Ann. § 20-13-102(a). The legislature did not remove immunity for all claims against the State, but only those claims specified in section 9-8-307(a).”
Greenhill v. Carpenter, 718 S.W.2d 268 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-13-102(b) — 7 cases
Univ. of Tennessee v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 670 F. Supp. 1379 (E.D. Tenn. 1987).
Jain v. Univ. of Tennessee at Martin, 670 F. Supp. 1388 (W.D. Tenn. 1987).
Stokes v. Univ. of Tenn. at Martin, 737 S.W.2d 545 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987). “T.C.A. § 20-13-102 provides: 20-13-102. Actions against state prohibited.”
Woolsey v. Hunt, 932 F.2d 555 (6th Cir. 1991).
Henderson v. Sw. Tennessee Cmty. Coll., 282 F. Supp. 2d 804 (W.D. Tenn. 2003).
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.