Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-14-101 (2026)
Definition of person
✓ current as of May 2026
"Person," wherever used in this chapter, is construed to mean any person, partnership, joint stock company, trust, unincorporated association, or society, or municipal or other corporation of any character whatsoever.
Acts 1923, ch. 29, § 13; Shan. Supp., § 4726a13; Code 1932, §8847; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), §23-1101; 2012 , ch. 886, § 3.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 148
cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · 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). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-14-101 to - 113 (2000 & Supp.”
City of Memphis, Tennessee v. Tre Hargett, Sec'y of State, 414 S.W.3d 88 (Tenn. 2013). “The Declaratory Judgment Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 29-14-101 to -113 (2012), authorizes municipalities, such as the City of Memphis, to seek a judicial determination of the validity of a statute, see id.”
Campbell v. Sundquist, 926 S.W.2d 250 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). “The complaint, as amended, seeks a declaratory judgment pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-14-101, et seq., (1980) that the Homosexual Practices Act (HPA), a criminal law, violates plaintiffs' right to privacy under Article I, Sections 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 19, and 27 of the Tennessee…”
Stephen Michael West v. Derrick D. Schofield, 460 S.W.3d 113 (Tenn. 2015). “” The Complaint asserts that the chancery court “has jurisdiction pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 29-14-103 , 29-14-113.”
Pitt v. Tyree Org. Ltd., 90 S.W.3d 244 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “Pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-14-101 et seq., an actual and justiciable controversy exists regarding the purported Tyree/Pitt indemnification provision in view of the (sic) Tyree’s demand to Pitt Excavating for indemnification regarding the losses resulting from the subject…”
Highwoods Props., Inc. v. City of Memphis, 297 S.W.3d 695 (Tenn. 2009). “See Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 29-14-101 through-113 (2000).”
McCallen v. City of Memphis, 786 S.W.2d 633 (Tenn. 1990). “This court held that “an action for declaratory judgment, as provided by Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 29-14-101 —29-14-113, rather than a petition for cer-tiorari is the proper remedy to be employed by one who seeks to invalidate an ordinance, resolution or other [local governmental]…”
L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Bracey, 817 S.W.2d 292 (Tenn. 1991). “§ 1983 actions involving state tax matters should prevent state courts from entertaining such actions when an adequate state remedy is otherwise available.”
Cannon Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Wade, 178 S.W.3d 725 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “School Board filed a Declaratory Judgment action pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-14-101, et seq., to avoid binding arbitration with a non-tenured teacher concerning the School Board’s decision to not extend the teacher’s contract of employment beyond its one-year term.”
State Ex Rel. Moore & Assocs., Inc. v. West, 246 S.W.3d 569 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “§§ 29-14-101 — 29-14-113, rather than a petition for certiorari is the proper remedy to be employed by one who seeks to invalidate an ordinance, resolution or other legislative action of county, city or other municipal legislative authority enacting or amending zoning…”
Moran v. Willensky, 339 S.W.3d 651 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). “Moran asked the court for a declaratory judgment, under Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-14-101 et seq., declaring that Mr.”
Fallin v. Knox Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 656 S.W.2d 338 (Tenn. 1983). “, §§ 29-14-101 — 29-14-113, rather than a petition for certiorari is the proper remedy to be employed by one who seeks to invalidate an ordinance, resolution or other legislative action of county, city or other municipal legislative authority enacting or amending zoning…”
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.