Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-113 (2026)
Actions by state
✓ current as of May 2026
This title does not apply to actions brought by the state of Tennessee, unless otherwise expressly provided.
Code 1858, § 2762 (deriv. Acts 1855-1856, ch. 113, § 3); impl. am. Acts 1865, ch. 36, § 34; impl. am. Acts 1873, ch. 13; Shan., § 4453; Code 1932, § 8579; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 28-115.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1984–2020 · leading case: County of Johnson v. United States Gypsum Co.
Cnty. of Johnson v. United States Gypsum Co., 580 F. Supp. 284 (E.D. Tenn. 1984). “Initially, the plaintiffs argument must be considered that it is protected from the running of any statute of limitations by T.C.A. § 28-1-113, which provides as follows: The provisions of this title [with regard to statutes of limitation] do not apply to actions brought by the…”
Hamilton Cnty. Emergency Commc'ns Dist. v. BellSouth Telecomm., LLC, 154 F. Supp. 3d 666 (E.D. Tenn. 2016). “However, the Districts assert, and the Court agrees, that the common law doctrine of nullum tempus occurit regi, codified at Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-113 , applies in this case and saves the non-TFCA claims 7 from the application of the statute of limitations.”
Kelley v. Metro. Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 615 F. Supp. 1139 (M.D. Tenn. 1985). “T.C.A. § 28-1-113 (1980). Political subdivisions of the State are not automatically entitled to state immunity from the operation of the statute of limitations.”
Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Asbestospray Corp., 909 S.W.2d 783 (Tenn. 1995). “on County Board of Education (the Board) in federal court to recover the cost of asbestos removal from its school buildings, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit certifies the following questions, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of…”
Collins v. Tennessee Dep't of Revenue, 555 B.R. 670 (W.D. Tenn. 2016). “§ 28-1-109 does not apply to the TDOR because another section found within the same title, T.C.A. § 28-1-113, specifically states that “[tjhe provisions of [Title 28] do not apply to actions brought by the [S]tate of Tennessee, unless otherwise expressly provided.”
Milcrofton Util. Dist. of Williamson Cnty., Tennessee v. City of Brentwood, Tennessee (M.D. Tenn. 2020). “The Statute of Limitations Applies to Milcrofton’s Federal Claim Milcrofton argues that the UDL precludes application of any statutory limitations period because the UDL proclaims that it is “complete in itself” and that “any other law, general, special or local, except as…”
City of Elizabethton, Tennessee v. North Am. Fibers, Inc. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). “However, Tenn. Code Ann. §28-1-113 provides that the provisions of Title 28 are not applicable to actions brought by the state “unless otherwise expressly provided for.”
Michael Collins v. Tenn. Dep't of Revenue (6th Cir. 2019). “TDOR claims that the “well-established” legislative history of Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-113 (the “exclusionary provision”) shows that the purpose of the section was to codify the common-law maxim “time does not run against the king,” so the State is not subject to the statutes of…”
Cnty. of San Mateo, California v. Murray Green, Sr. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “4 San Mateo argues that it may enforce its judgment in Tennessee based on Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-113 , which provides: “The provisions of this title [limitation of actions] do not apply to actions brought by the state of Tennessee, unless otherwise ex pressly provided .”
Knox Co. v. Perceptics (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). “Tennessee’s version of this doctrine, found at T.C.A. § 28-1-113, provides as follows: “The provisions of this title [pertaining to statutes of limitation] do not apply to actions brought by the State of Tennessee, unless otherwise expressly provided.”
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.