Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-104 (2026)

Investigation and prosecution

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

Acts 2001, ch. 367, § 4; 2004, ch. 763, § 1.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2009–2025 · leading case: Knox Cnty. Ex Rel. Env't Termite & Pest Control, Inc. v. Arrow Exterminators, Inc., 350 S.W.3d 511 (Tenn. 2011).
Knox Cnty. Ex Rel. Env't Termite & Pest Control, Inc. v. Arrow Exterminators, Inc., 350 S.W.3d 511 (Tenn. 2011). · cites it 27× “The trial court heard the matter without a jury and held that the qui tam plaintiff was an “original source” for the purpose of Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-104 (d)(3)(A) and, therefore, was entitled to receive 28% of the settlement proceeds or $71,546.”
Madden Phillips Constr., Inc. v. GGAT Dev. Corp., 315 S.W.3d 800 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “filed) (citation omitted) (reviewing an award of attorney’s fees under Tennessee Code Annotated section 4-18-104(g)(9) (2005), which provided that the court may award fees); Carney v.”
United States ex rel. Palmieri v. Alpharma, Inc., 928 F. Supp. 2d 840 (D. Maryland 2013). “1-4(b)(5); Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-104 (c)(10); Tex. Hum.”
Knox Cnty., Tennessee, on the relationship of Env't Termite & Pest Control, Inc., qui tam (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 31× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-104 (c)(1) and (2).”
State of Tennessee ex rel. Nana Landenberger v. Proj. Return, Inc. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 28× “Landenberger was not an original source within the meaning of Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-104 (3). PRI also filed a renewed motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to plead fraud with particularity.”
The City of Chattanooga Ex Rel. Don Lepard, Qui Tam v. Elec. Power Bd. of Chattanooga (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 10× “(citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-104 ). As our Supreme Court has explained: The Tennessee General Assembly has a long history of enacting statutes authorizing qui tam actions.”
Parks v. Deibel Labs. of Tennessee, LLC (E.D. Tenn. 2025). · cites it 4× “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-104 (a)(1), (c)(1).”
Pamela Cotham v. Nicholas Jay Yeager (Tenn. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “§ 4-18-104 ). As our Supreme Court has explained: The Tennessee General Assembly has a long history of enacting statutes authorizing qui tam actions.”
Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Lakisha Simmons (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-104 (c)(1) (2011).”
United States of Am. v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc. (E.D. Pa. 2021). “§ 1-611 ; Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-104 ; Va. Code Ann.”
Robert E. Lee Flade v. City of Shelbyville, Tennessee (2024). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-104 (c)(1). This language specifically limits the right to take a voluntary nonsuit.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-104(c) — 2 cases
Knox Cnty. Ex Rel. Env't Termite & Pest Control, Inc. v. Arrow Exterminators, Inc., 350 S.W.3d 511 (Tenn. 2011). “The trial court heard the matter without a jury and held that the qui tam plaintiff was an “original source” for the purpose of Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-104 (d)(3)(A) and, therefore, was entitled to receive 28% of the settlement proceeds or $71,546.”
Pamela Cotham v. Nicholas Jay Yeager (Tenn. Ct. App. 2020). “§ 4-18-104 ). As our Supreme Court has explained: The Tennessee General Assembly has a long history of enacting statutes authorizing qui tam actions.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-104(d)(3) — 1 case
Knox Cnty. Ex Rel. Env't Termite & Pest Control, Inc. v. Arrow Exterminators, Inc., 350 S.W.3d 511 (Tenn. 2011). “The trial court heard the matter without a jury and held that the qui tam plaintiff was an “original source” for the purpose of Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-104 (d)(3)(A) and, therefore, was entitled to receive 28% of the settlement proceeds or $71,546.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-104(d)(3)(A) — 1 case
Knox Cnty. Ex Rel. Env't Termite & Pest Control, Inc. v. Arrow Exterminators, Inc., 350 S.W.3d 511 (Tenn. 2011). “The trial court heard the matter without a jury and held that the qui tam plaintiff was an “original source” for the purpose of Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-104 (d)(3)(A) and, therefore, was entitled to receive 28% of the settlement proceeds or $71,546.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-104(d)(3)(B) — 2 cases
Knox Cnty. Ex Rel. Env't Termite & Pest Control, Inc. v. Arrow Exterminators, Inc., 350 S.W.3d 511 (Tenn. 2011). “The trial court heard the matter without a jury and held that the qui tam plaintiff was an “original source” for the purpose of Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-104 (d)(3)(A) and, therefore, was entitled to receive 28% of the settlement proceeds or $71,546.”
Knox Cnty., Tennessee, on the relationship of Env't Termite & Pest Control, Inc., qui tam (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-104 (c)(1) and (2).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-104(d)(S)(B) — 1 case
Knox Cnty. Ex Rel. Env't Termite & Pest Control, Inc. v. Arrow Exterminators, Inc., 350 S.W.3d 511 (Tenn. 2011). “The trial court heard the matter without a jury and held that the qui tam plaintiff was an “original source” for the purpose of Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-104 (d)(3)(A) and, therefore, was entitled to receive 28% of the settlement proceeds or $71,546.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-104(g)(2) — 2 cases
Knox Cnty. Ex Rel. Env't Termite & Pest Control, Inc. v. Arrow Exterminators, Inc., 350 S.W.3d 511 (Tenn. 2011). “The trial court heard the matter without a jury and held that the qui tam plaintiff was an “original source” for the purpose of Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-104 (d)(3)(A) and, therefore, was entitled to receive 28% of the settlement proceeds or $71,546.”
Knox Cnty., Tennessee, on the relationship of Env't Termite & Pest Control, Inc., qui tam (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-104 (c)(1) and (2).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-104(g)(9) — 2 cases
Madden Phillips Constr., Inc. v. GGAT Dev. Corp., 315 S.W.3d 800 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “filed) (citation omitted) (reviewing an award of attorney’s fees under Tennessee Code Annotated section 4-18-104(g)(9) (2005), which provided that the court may award fees); Carney v.”
The City of Chattanooga Ex Rel. Don Lepard, Qui Tam v. Elec. Power Bd. of Chattanooga (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). “(citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-104 ). As our Supreme Court has explained: The Tennessee General Assembly has a long history of enacting statutes authorizing qui tam actions.”
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.