Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-914 (2026)

Display for sale or rental of material harmful to minors

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

Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 1990, ch. 1092, § 5; 2000, ch. 763, § 2.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1993–2024 · leading case: Davis-Kidd Booksellers, Inc. v. McWherter, 866 S.W.2d 520 (Tenn. 1993).
Davis-Kidd Booksellers, Inc. v. McWherter, 866 S.W.2d 520 (Tenn. 1993). · cites it 12× “; see also Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-17-903(a) (1991). The plaintiffs first argue that because the definition of nuisance includes places where violations of the display statute, Tenn.”
Friends of George's, Inc. v. Steven Mulroy, 108 F.4th 431 (6th Cir. 2024). · cites it 3× “2d at 522 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-914 (a) (1991)). In the introductory paragraphs of the opinion, the Davis-Kidd court announced that “the display statute is readily susceptible to a narrowing construction which makes it only applicable to those…”
Friends of Georges, Inc. v. Steven J. Mulroy, in his Off. & individual capacity (W.D. Tenn. 2023). “15 Even if the Davis-Kidd opinion were attached with the AEA (it is not), some might say that an equally convincing reading of Davis-Kidd is that the Tennessee Supreme Court applied its narrowing construction only to the adult materials display statute (§ 39-17-914(a)) and not…”
East Brooks Books, Inc. v. Shelby Cnty., Tennessee (6th Cir. 2009). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-914 ; Davis-Kidd Booksellers v.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-914(a): 2 cases
Davis-Kidd Booksellers, Inc. v. McWherter, 866 S.W.2d 520 (Tenn. 1993). “; see also Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-17-903(a) (1991). The plaintiffs first argue that because the definition of nuisance includes places where violations of the display statute, Tenn.”
Friends of Georges, Inc. v. Steven J. Mulroy, in his Off. & individual capacity (W.D. Tenn. 2023). “15 Even if the Davis-Kidd opinion were attached with the AEA (it is not), some might say that an equally convincing reading of Davis-Kidd is that the Tennessee Supreme Court applied its narrowing construction only to the adult materials display statute (§ 39-17-914(a)) and not…”
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.