Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-303 (2026)

Definitions

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

As used in this part and §§ 39-13-601 - [former] 39-13-603 [repealed], unless the context otherwise requires:

Acts 1994, ch. 964, § 3; 1996, ch. 903, § 1; 2006, ch. 777, § 1; 2009 , ch. 440, §§ 1, 2.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: Cardinal Health 414, Inc. v. Adams, 582 F. Supp. 2d 967 (M.D. Tenn. 2008).
Cardinal Health 414, Inc. v. Adams, 582 F. Supp. 2d 967 (M.D. Tenn. 2008). · cites it 2× “§ 2510 ; T.C.A. § 40-6-303(11). The core dispute between Cardinal and the defendants is whether the e-mails at issue were “intercepted.”
Billiter v. SP Plus Corp., 329 F. Supp. 3d 459 (M.D. Tenn. 2018). · cites it 2× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-303 (11) ; Cardinal Health , 582 F.”
State v. Munn, 56 S.W.3d 486 (Tenn. 2001). “§ 40-6-303(14) (Supp.1996) (emphasis added).”
Frierson v. Goetz, 227 F. Supp. 2d 889 (M.D. Tenn. 2002). · cites it 9× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-6-303(19). 6 Like the Federal Wiretap Act codified at 18 U.”
Robinson v. Fulliton, 140 S.W.3d 312 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). “Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-6-303(1) defines the term "actual damages": “Actual damages” means damages given as compensation; damages given as an equivalent for the injury done; damages in satisfaction of, or in recompense for, loss or injury sustained; those damages awarded…”
Frierson v. Goetz, 99 F. App'x 649 (6th Cir. 2004). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-6-303(19) (definition of “wire communication” specifically excludes cordless telephone communications).”
John William Owens Et.al v. Meredith Elizabeth Owens (Tenn. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 9× “]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-303 (4). In addition, as this Court has previously instructed: The legislature defines an oral communication as “any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under…”
Ronald Ledford v. John Ben Sneed (Tenn. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 6× “]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-303 (14). The legislature defines intercept as “the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device[.”
Ashley Shearin Meade v. Paducah Nissan, LLC (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 6× “] Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-303 (7). Here, Appellant cites the same basis for violation of section 39-13-606 as she cited as a violation of federal law: that Mr.”
State of Tennessee v. Vernon Elliott Lockhart (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-303 (2) (emphasis added).”
Sontay v. Rose (M.D. Tenn. 2025). · cites it 2× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-303 (14); 18 U.S.C.”
Christopher N. Robinson v. William Fulliton (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “4 Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-6-303(1) defines the term “actual damages”: “Actual damages” means damages given as compensation; damages given as an equivalent for the injury done; dam ages in satisfaction of, or in recompense for, loss or injury sustained; those damages…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-303(1) — 2 cases
Robinson v. Fulliton, 140 S.W.3d 312 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). “Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-6-303(1) defines the term "actual damages": “Actual damages” means damages given as compensation; damages given as an equivalent for the injury done; damages in satisfaction of, or in recompense for, loss or injury sustained; those damages awarded…”
Christopher N. Robinson v. William Fulliton (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “4 Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-6-303(1) defines the term “actual damages”: “Actual damages” means damages given as compensation; damages given as an equivalent for the injury done; dam ages in satisfaction of, or in recompense for, loss or injury sustained; those damages…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-303(11) — 1 case
Cardinal Health 414, Inc. v. Adams, 582 F. Supp. 2d 967 (M.D. Tenn. 2008). “§ 2510 ; T.C.A. § 40-6-303(11). The core dispute between Cardinal and the defendants is whether the e-mails at issue were “intercepted.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-303(14) — 1 case
State v. Munn, 56 S.W.3d 486 (Tenn. 2001). “§ 40-6-303(14) (Supp.1996) (emphasis added).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-303(19) — 2 cases
Frierson v. Goetz, 227 F. Supp. 2d 889 (M.D. Tenn. 2002). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-6-303(19). 6 Like the Federal Wiretap Act codified at 18 U.”
Frierson v. Goetz, 99 F. App'x 649 (6th Cir. 2004). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-6-303(19) (definition of “wire communication” specifically excludes cordless telephone communications).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-303(7) — 1 case
Frierson v. Goetz, 227 F. Supp. 2d 889 (M.D. Tenn. 2002). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-6-303(19). 6 Like the Federal Wiretap Act codified at 18 U.”
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.