Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-17-102 (2026)

Part definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

As used in this part, unless the context otherwise requires:

Amended by 2024 Tenn. Acts, ch. 1034,s 1, eff. 5/28/2024.

Amended by 2017 Tenn. Acts, ch. 422, s 1, eff. 5/18/2017.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2012–2025 · leading case: RLR Investments, LLC v. City of Pigeon Forge, Tenn., 4 F.4th 380 (6th Cir. 2021).
RLR Investments, LLC v. City of Pigeon Forge, Tenn., 4 F.4th 380 (6th Cir. 2021). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-17-102 ; see id. § 29-17-104.”
City of Memphis, A Mun. Corp. for the Use & Benefit of Memphis Light Gas & Water v. Tandy J. Gilliland Fam., L.L.C., 391 S.W.3d 60 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-17-102 (2)(B) (“Public Use” includes “[t]he acquisition of any interest in land necessary to the function of a public or private utility.”
City of Pigeon Forge, Tennessee v. Rlr Investments, LLC (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “Having determined, as a matter of law, that the Order of Possession did not include a directive to the City to construct replacement parking, we decline to address the City’s alternate argument that the private benefit of replacement parking would have been incidental to the…”
RLR Investments, LLC v. City of Pigeon Forge, Tenn. (6th Cir. 2021). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-17-102 ; see id. § 29-17-104.”
City of Cookeville v. Mary Jackson (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). “other statutes granting the authority to use the power of eminent domain by government entities, or those entities to whom the government delegates such authority, this part shall control and shall be construed to protect the private property rights of individuals and…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-17-102(1) — 1 case
City of Pigeon Forge, Tennessee v. Rlr Investments, LLC (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025). “Having determined, as a matter of law, that the Order of Possession did not include a directive to the City to construct replacement parking, we decline to address the City’s alternate argument that the private benefit of replacement parking would have been incidental to the…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-17-102(2) — 1 case
City of Pigeon Forge, Tennessee v. Rlr Investments, LLC (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025). “Having determined, as a matter of law, that the Order of Possession did not include a directive to the City to construct replacement parking, we decline to address the City’s alternate argument that the private benefit of replacement parking would have been incidental to the…”
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.