Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-124 (2026)
Limitation of owners' actions
✓ current as of May 2026
All actions that could be brought under § 29-16-123(a), regardless of the cause of action or remedy sought, including actions for trespass or nuisance, shall be commenced within twelve (12) months after the land has been actually taken possession of, and the work of the proposed internal improvement begun; saving, however, to unknown owners and nonresidents, twelve (12) months after actual knowledge of such occupation, not exceeding three (3) years, and saving to persons under the disabilities of infancy and unsoundness of mind, twelve (12) months after such disability is removed, but not exceeding ten (10) years.
Amended by 2015 Tenn. Acts, ch. 275, s 1, eff. 7/1/2015.
Code 1858, § 1348 (deriv. Acts 1849-1850, ch. 72, § 9; 1855-1856, ch. 132, §§ 10, 11); Shan., § 1867; mod. Code 1932, §3132; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1424.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: B & B Enter. of Wilson Cnty., LLC v. City of Lebanon, 318 S.W.3d 839 (Tenn. 2010).
B & B Enter. of Wilson Cnty., LLC v. City of Lebanon, 318 S.W.3d 839 (Tenn. 2010). “The developer of a residential subdivision in Wilson County filed suit in the Circuit Court for Wilson County against the City of Lebanon and others alleging that the city’s planning commission had denied it all economically beneficial use of its property by wrongfully refusing…”
Cameo Bobo v. City of Jackson, Tennessee, 511 S.W.3d 14 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). “Did the trial court err by finding that Plaintiff Cameo Bobo filed her inverse condemnation claim against Defendant City of Jackson, Tennessee after the applicable statute of limitations set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-124 Standard of Review A motion for summary judgment…”
Mack Phillips v. Montgomery Cnty., Tennessee, 442 S.W.3d 233 (Tenn. 2014). “§ 27-9-102 (2000) (stating that a party appealing a decision of a board or commission has sixty days to file a petition for writ of certiorari in chancery court); § 27-9-111 (Supp.”
Burchfield v. State, 774 S.W.2d 178 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988). “Burchfield’s exclusive remedy — inverse condemnation — was barred by T.C.A. 29-16-124. 1 Mr. Burch-field also raises issues on appeal, insisting that under the proof the damages awarded by the Commissioner were inadequate and that he should have issued a mandatory injunction…”
Ronald & Sherry Windrow v. Middle Tennessee Elec. Membership Corp., 376 S.W.3d 733 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-16-124. The issue on appeal is whether, under Tennessee statutes and caselaw, the Windrows may assert only an inverse condemnation claim against MTEMC, or whether they may also assert a nuisance claim.”
Vowell Ventures v. City of Martin, 47 S.W.3d 434 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). “The City responded by a pleading styled Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment contending that the complaint was an action of inverse condemnation and was barred by the statute of limitations set forth in T.C.A. § 29-16-124; that the action is barred by the statute of…”
Davis v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 620 S.W.2d 532 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981). “T.C.A. § 29-16-124 requires such suits to be brought within one year.”
Ambrose v. City of Knoxville, 728 S.W.2d 338 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986). “On appeal, the plaintiff contends, in essence, that the City acted illegally in “taking” plaintiff’s ingress and egress to his property pursuant to a City Council resolution; that the chancery court has subject matter jurisdiction over all of his claims; and whether plaintiff…”
Wayne C. Lance v. City of Manchester (Tenn. Ct. App. 2024). “-3- Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-124 . The Public Building Authority defendants supported their motion with an affidavit from the general manager of the outdoor venue, who stated that construction work was performed at the venue between August 2017 and May 2018, and the venue was…”
Daniel Harvey v. Shelby Cnty., Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019). “Because Plaintiffs initiated this suit against the State more than one year later, on October 16, 2015, their claims against the State are time-barred under Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-124 , and the State is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
John Griff Lucas v. City of Waverly, Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). “Lucas responded; the court granted the motion and dismissed the case on the grounds that the action was barred by the statute of limitations contained at Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-124 . The trial court found that the cause of action accrued on either of two occasions: 5.”
Gene Par. v. Smith Util. Dist. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). “§ 29-20-305 (b) (2012), as well as the 12-month statute of limitations applicable to inverse condemnation actions, Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-124 (2012).1 Reasoning that Mr.”
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.