Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-35-101 (2026)
Grounds for action
✓ current as of May 2026
An action lies in the name of the state against the person or corporation offending, in the following cases:
- (1) Whenever any person unlawfully holds or exercises any public office or franchise within this state, or any office in any corporation created by the laws of this state;
- (2) Whenever any public officer has done, or suffered to be done, any act which works a forfeiture of that officer's office;
- (3) When any person acts as a corporation within this state, without being authorized by law; or
- (4) If, being incorporated, they:
- (A) Do or omit acts which amount to a surrender or forfeiture of their rights and privileges as a corporation;
- (B) Exercise powers not conferred by law; or
- (C) Fail to exercise powers conferred by law and essential to the corporate existence.
Code 1858, § 3409 (deriv. Acts 1845-1846, ch. 55, § 5); Shan., §5165; Code 1932, § 9336; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2801.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: State Ex Rel. DeSelm v. Knox Cnty. Comm'n, 342 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010).
State Ex Rel. DeSelm v. Knox Cnty. Comm'n, 342 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). “A hearing was then held on the post-judgment motions filed by the plaintiffs and an Order was entered by the Trial Court, which set aside only the summary judgment granted the Commission on the Open Meeting Act claim but did not disturb its June 7, 2007 judgment dismissing…”
State by Pierotti Ex Rel. Boone v. Sundquist, 884 S.W.2d 438 (Tenn. 1994). “The State on relation of the individual plaintiffs, by and through the District Attorney General, joined as a party plaintiff and asserted a cause of action against the defendants in the nature of quo warranto pursuant to T.C.A. §§ 29-35-101 et seq. The plaintiffs did not allege…”
Jordan v. Knox Cnty., 213 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2007). “The common law remedy of quo warranto is codified in section 29-35-101 of the Tennessee Code Annotated.”
Dossett v. City of Kingsport, 258 S.W.3d 139 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “, district attorney general for the Second Judicial District of Tennessee, in the nature of a quo warranto action pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-35-101, et seq. In support of his motion, Plaintiff attached a letter from Wells in which the district attorney declined to…”
State ex rel. Working v. Costa, 216 S.W.3d 758 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “The suit was filed pursuant to the quo warranto statutes of the State of Tennessee, T.C.A. § 29-35-101 1 ; the Tennessee Declaratory Judgment Act, T.”
State of Tennessee, on Relation of v. Calvin Howell v. Jimmy Farris, 562 S.W.3d 432 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). “Howell has not appealed the dismissal of his Tennessee Code Annotated Section 29-35-101 et seq. claim (forfeiture of office), his declaratory judgment claims, or his claims for injunctive relief.”
State ex rel. Vaughn v. King, 653 S.W.2d 727 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982). “In our judgment the only way by which plaintiffs, as private citizens, could possibly have standing to sue is in quo warranto pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-35-101. That statute provides: Grounds for action.”
Town of Smyrna v. Ridley, 730 S.W.2d 318 (Tenn. 1987). “This is an action in the nature of quo warranto by the District Attorney General on behalf of the State as provided by T.C.A., § 29-35-101, et seq., seeking to remove the defendant from the office of May- or of Smyrna, Tennessee, and to recover a forfeiture of the sums which he…”
State ex rel. Cordova Area Residents for the Env't v. City of Memphis, 862 S.W.2d 525 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992). “Plaintiff residents organization argues that it has commenced its suit under the general quo warranto statute contained in T.C.A. § 29-35-101 et seq. They allege that they are not suing the defendant as adjoining landowners but rather as representatives of the State.”
The Commissioners of the Powell-Clinch Util. Dist. v. Util. Mgmt. Review Bd., 427 S.W.3d 375 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013). “Additionally, Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-35-101 et seq. provides for the removal of a person holding office illegally.”
State ex rel. Lockert v. Knott, 631 S.W.2d 124 (Tenn. 1982). “The defendant, however, has overlooked the provisions of T.C.A., § 29-35-101, which specifically provide that “an action lies in the name of the state .”
Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty. ex rel. Anderson v. Fulton, 701 S.W.2d 597 (Tenn. 1985). “As previously stated, no statutory authority has been invoked. Plainly it cannot stand as a quo warranto action, no attempt having been made to have the action brought by the District Attorney.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-35-101(4)(B) — 1 case
City of Bristol v. Town of Bluff City, 868 S.W.2d 282 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993).
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.