Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-35-109 (2026)
Officers entitled to bring suit
✓ current as of May 2026
The suit is brought by the attorney general for the district or county, when directed so to do by the general assembly, or by the governor and attorney general of the state concurring.
Code 1858, § 3412 (deriv. Acts 1845-1846, ch. 55, § 5); Shan., §5168; Code 1932, § 9339; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2809.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2022 · leading case: Jordan v. Knox Cnty., 213 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2007).
Jordan v. Knox Cnty., 213 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2007). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-35-109 (2003). The statutory scheme also sets forth the procedure for filing the suit on behalf of a private individual, Tenn.”
Dossett v. City of Kingsport, 258 S.W.3d 139 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-35-109. The reasoning for this limitation has been explained as follows: In a sense — in a very important sense— every citizen and every taxpayer is interested in the enforcement of law, in the administration of law, and in having only qualified officers…”
State Ex Rel. DeSelm v. Knox Cnty. Comm'n, 342 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). “A quo warranto action is typically brought by the attorney general for the district or county as provided by Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-35-109 but under Tenn.”
State ex rel. Lockert v. Knott, 631 S.W.2d 124 (Tenn. 1982). “, § 23-2809, has been renumbered as T.C.A., § 29-35-109, and provides: “Officers entitled to bring suit.”
Trigg v. Mansfield, 648 S.W.2d 946 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982). “§ 29-35-101, and to which the district attorney general is a necessary party, T.C.A. § 29-35-109; this is an action of a distinctly different character.”
State of Tennessee ex rel. Arlie \Max\" Watson v. Larry Waters" (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). “The antecedent “it” refers back to Tenn. Code Ann. §29-35-109 , which states: The suit is brought by the attorney general for the district or county, when directed so to do by the general assembly, or by the governor and attorney general of the state concurring.”
Jared Effler v. Purdue Pharma L.P. (Tenn. 2020). “”); Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-35-109 (2012) (“The suit is brought by the attorney general for the district or county, when directed so to do by the general assembly, or by the governor and attorney general of the state concurring.”
David A. Avery v. Cheryl A. Blackburn (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022). “The reasoning for this limitation has been explained as follows: In a sense—in a very important sense—every citizen and every taxpayer is interested in the enforcement of law, in the administration of law, and in having only qualified officers execute the law.”
State of Tennessee ex rel. Arlie \Max\" Watson v. Larry Waters" (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). “§ 29-35-110 (a) (2000) and the code section – Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-35-109 (2000) – immediately preceding Section 110.”
City of New Johnsonville v. Kevin E. Handley & Gene Plant v. Kevin E. Handley (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-35-109 (2003) (emphasis added).”
State of Tennessee ex rel., Herbert S. Moncier v. Nancy S. Jones (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013). “Stutts and Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-35-109. Defendants filed a Response to 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.