Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-113 (2026)

Investigation by jury

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The jury will then proceed to examine the ground, and may hear testimony, but no argument of counsel, and set apart, by metes and bounds, a sufficient quantity of land for the purposes intended, and assess the damages occasioned to the owner thereby.

(b) In condemning rights-of-way for telegraph and telephone companies, or riparian rights, the juries shall not be required to lay off the property, privileges, rights, or easements included in the petition, or sought to be condemned, by metes and bounds; and, in such cases, it shall be discretionary with such juries whether they will view the premises or not.

Code 1858, § 1337; Acts 1885, ch. 135; Shan., §§1856, 1870; mod. Code 1932, §§ 3121, 3136; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1413.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1997–2000 · leading case: Metro. Dev. & Hous. Agency v. Trinity Marine Nashville, Inc ., 40 S.W.3d 73 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Metro. Dev. & Hous. Agency v. Trinity Marine Nashville, Inc ., 40 S.W.3d 73 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 6× “Defendant relies upon its argument that T.C.A. § 29-16-113 gives the jury of view the sole authority to determine incidental damages to try to create a conflict under Tenn.”

First Util. Dist. of Knox Cnty., Tennessee v. Eleanor Jo Jarnigan-Bodden, 40 S.W.3d 60 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “Although not specifically addressed *65 in the Order of Possession on appeal, Plaintiff in the Complaint sought condemnation under T.”

First Util. Dist. of Knox Cnty. v. Eleanor Jo Jarnigan-Bodden (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “Although not specifically addressed in the Order of Possession on appeal, Plaintiff in the Complaint sought condemnation under T.C.”

United Citites Gas Co. v. Suddarth (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 3× “§ 29-16-113 permits a jury of view to differ with a condemning gas pipeline company’s determination of the amount of property needed for the project.”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-113(a) — 2 cases

Metro. Dev. & Hous. Agency v. Trinity Marine Nashville, Inc ., 40 S.W.3d 73 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). “Defendant relies upon its argument that T.C.A. § 29-16-113 gives the jury of view the sole authority to determine incidental damages to try to create a conflict under Tenn.”

United Citites Gas Co. v. Suddarth (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). “§ 29-16-113 permits a jury of view to differ with a condemning gas pipeline company’s determination of the amount of property needed for the project.”

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.