Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 54-5-108 (2026)

Cooperation by department with federal government in designating roads, and in erection of danger signals and safety devices

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

Acts 1925, ch. 52, §§ 1, 2; Shan. Supp., §§ 1720a7b28, 1720a7b29; Code 1932, §§ 3187, 3188; Acts 1965, ch. 160, § 1; impl. am. Acts 1959, ch. 9, § 3; impl. am. Acts 1972, ch. 829, § 7; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 54-508; Acts 1981, ch. 264, § 12.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2022 · leading case: Thomas v. Schroer, 248 F. Supp. 3d 868 (W.D. Tenn. 2017).
Thomas v. Schroer, 248 F. Supp. 3d 868 (W.D. Tenn. 2017). · cites it 2× “Public/Private Property Fifth, the State contends that Thomas’s proposal to “treat” all public and private property signs the “same” is confusing, unless Thomas seeks to subject all signs to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (“MUTCD”), T.C.A. § 54-5-108(b). (Id. at…”
Gorman v. Earhart, 876 S.W.2d 832 (Tenn. 1994). · cites it 2× “The manual referenced in the charge was adopted by the Tennessee Department of Transportation pursuant to the authority granted to it by T.C.A. § 54-5-108. See Rules of Tennessee Department of Transportation, Tenn.”
Begley v. State, 162 S.W.3d 535 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “Fitzgerald, Plaintiff's expert, testified that the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices ("the MUTCD"), a publication by the Federal Highway Administration, which contains the "nationally accepted practice for traffic control including work zone type activities", has been…”
O'Guin v. Corbin, 777 S.W.2d 697 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 3× “” Plaintiff insists that since the legislature by the enactment of Tenn.Code Ann. § 54-5-108 adopted the Uniform Manual for Uniform Traffic Control devices, defendant must take the manual into consideration in determining where and when to erect a traffic control device and that…”
Curtis Robin Russsell v. Anderson Cnty. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “The trial court found that the MUTCD has been adopted by this state and the City through enabling legislation in Tenn. Code Ann. § 54-5-108 (b) requiring governmental agencies in the state to conform to the provisions of the manual.”
Gabriel Dryden v. The Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 54-5-108 (b) (1998). Regarding the placement of yield signs, the manual provides several situations where “YIELD signs may be installed.”
Eimers v. Valmont Indus., Inc. (E.D. Tenn. 2022). · cites it 2× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 54-5-108 (emphasis added); see also Austin v.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 54-5-108(b): 2 cases
Thomas v. Schroer, 248 F. Supp. 3d 868 (W.D. Tenn. 2017). “Public/Private Property Fifth, the State contends that Thomas’s proposal to “treat” all public and private property signs the “same” is confusing, unless Thomas seeks to subject all signs to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (“MUTCD”), T.C.A. § 54-5-108(b). (Id. at…”
Gabriel Dryden v. The Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 54-5-108 (b) (1998). Regarding the placement of yield signs, the manual provides several situations where “YIELD signs may be installed.”
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.