Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-18-101 (2026)
Unlawful entry prohibited
✓ current as of May 2026
No person shall enter upon any lands, tenements, or other possessions, and detain or hold the same, but where entry is given by law, and then only in a peaceable manner.
Code 1858, § 3341 (deriv. Acts 1821, ch. 14, § 1); Shan., § 5090; Code 1932, § 9244; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1601.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: 94th Aero Squadron of Memphis, Inc. v. Memphis-Shelby Cnty. Airport Auth., 169 S.W.3d 627 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
94th Aero Squadron of Memphis, Inc. v. Memphis-Shelby Cnty. Airport Auth., 169 S.W.3d 627 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-18-101 (1999 Supp.). The legislative intent behind the creation of Forcible Entry and Detainer (FED) actions was to provide a streamlined summary procedure to determine the rights to possession of land, in contrast to the old formal common law ejectment…”
Four Eights, LLC. v. Salem, 194 S.W.3d 484 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “Whether the trial court erred in finding that Salem was a holdover tenant within the meaning of Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-18-101 et seq.? 2. Whether Four Eights is entitled to attorney’s fees? 3.”
Newport Hous. Auth. v. Ballard, 839 S.W.2d 86 (Tenn. 1992). “In this appeal of a landlord-tenant dispute we are asked to rule upon whether a defendant in an unlawful detainer action, brought under T.C.A. § 29-18-101 et seq., has the constitutional right to a jury trial in a general sessions court.”
Cain P'ship, Ltd. v. Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co., 914 S.W.2d 452 (Tenn. 1996). “This action was brought under the Tennessee detainer statutes, T.C.A. §§ 29-18-101 et seq., seeking possession of the premises from the tenant-appellee, Pioneer Investment Services ("Pioneer").”
Edith Johnson v. Mark C. Hopkins, 432 S.W.3d 840 (Tenn. 2013). “Under the current statute, Tennessee Code Annotated sections 29-18-101 to -134 (2012 & Supp.2013), 3 an unlawful detainer action may begin, as here, in the general sessions court, id.”
Coleman v. Indymac Venture LLC, 966 F. Supp. 2d 759 (W.D. Tenn. 2013). “) Coleman seeks a temporary restraining order prohibiting Indymac Venture from taking possession or initiating legal action to take possession of the property, rescission of the foreclosure of the property, and damages arising under the FDCPA, TCPA, and unlawful entry under…”
Kova Bristol Tenn 1894, LLC v. Bristol Pres., LLC (E.D. Tenn. 2020). “64 and Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-18-101 et seq. [Doc.”
94th Aero Squadron of Memphis, Inc. v. Memphis-Shelby Cnty. Airport Auth. v. Specialy restaurant Corp. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-18-101 (1999 Supp.).”
Rutherford Cnty., Tennessee v. Delinquent Taxpayers Of Rutherford Cnty., Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017). “Id. at 636-37 . Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-18-101 provides that “[n]o person shall enter upon any lands, tenements, or other possessions, and detain or hold the same, but where entry is given by law, and then only in a peaceable manner.”
Rutherford Wrestling Club, Inc. v. Robert Arnold (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-18-101 . The Club‟s argument must fail because there is no evidence of a leasehold interest in the building.”
CitiFinancial Mortg. Co., Inc. v. Augustus Beasley (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-18-101 (2000). The legislative intent behind the creation of FED actions was to provide a streamlined, inexpensive, summary procedure to determine the rights to possession of land, in contrast to the old formal common law ejectment action.”
Four Eights, LLC. v. Ahmad Salem & Ahmad Salem v. Four Eights, LLC. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “Whether the trial court erred in finding that Salem was a holdover tenant within the meaning of Tenn. Code Ann. §29-18-101 et seq.? 2. Whether Four Eights is entitled to attorney’s fees? 3.”
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.