Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-211 (2026)
Examination of livestock by commissioner of agriculture or other persons
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) No entry onto the property of another, arrest, interference with usual and customary agricultural or veterinary practices, confiscation, or any other action authorized by this part or any other law shall be taken in response to an allegation that this part has been violated with regard to livestock unless, prior to or at the time of such action:
- (1) The livestock in question has been examined by:
- (A) The commissioner of agriculture or the commissioner's duly authorized agent trained to conduct livestock cruelty examinations;
- (B) A graduate of an accredited college of veterinary medicine specializing in livestock practice; or
- (C) A graduate of an accredited college of agriculture with a specialty in livestock; and
- (2) Upon examination of the livestock, the commissioner, commissioner's agent, or graduate has probable cause to believe that a violation of this part has occurred with regard to the livestock.
- (1) The livestock in question has been examined by:
- (b) If a person authorized by this section to make a probable cause examination of livestock does not examine the livestock within twenty-four (24) hours of receiving the allegation, a licensed veterinarian may make the inspection, and the veterinarian's findings shall be afforded the same presumption and effect as an examination conducted by a person authorized pursuant to subsection (a).
Amended by 2016 Tenn. Acts, ch. 740,s 1, eff. 4/7/2016.
Acts 1997, ch. 90, § 3.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2021–2022 · leading case: Stephen Hopkins v. Anthony Nichols, 37 F.4th 1110 (6th Cir. 2022).
Stephen Hopkins v. Anthony Nichols, 37 F.4th 1110 (6th Cir. 2022). “Johnson completed a Livestock Welfare Examination, as required by Tennessee law, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-211 , in which she noted that the cattle were not in reasonable health, that they lacked access to appropriate water, food, or shelter, and that major disease issues were…”
State of Tennessee v. Michael Patrick Sullivan & Deborah Clark Buckner, Alias (Tenn. Crim. App. 2021). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-211 (2015) (emphasis added).”
State of Tennessee v. Jessica Hartle Lumpkins (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022). “See T.C.A. § 39-14-211. We conclude that the emu was not livestock under the plain language of the statute and thus no livestock examination was required to proceed with charges under the animal cruelty statute.”
State of Tennessee v. Jessica Hartle Lumpkins (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022). “See T.C.A. § 39-14-211. We conclude that the emu was not livestock under the plain language of the statute and thus no livestock examination was required to proceed with charges under the animal cruelty statute.”
Hopkins v. Nichols (M.D. Tenn. 2021). “Defendants assert that a reasonable official would not have known that seizing the Hopkins’ cattle without a warrant violated a clearly established federal right because Detective Nichols and Sheriff Lamb were enforcing Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-14-211, which they…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-211(a)(1)(C) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Michael Patrick Sullivan & Deborah Clark Buckner, Alias (Tenn. Crim. App. 2021). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-211 (2015) (emphasis added).”
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.