Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 65-6-132 (2026)
Trees to be cut down
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) Every company or person operating a railroad in this state shall cut down all trees standing on its lands which are six (6) or more inches in a diameter two feet (2') above the ground and of sufficient height to reach the roadbed if they should fall.
- (b) A failure to comply with subsection (a) will render the company liable for all damages to person or property resulting therefrom; also to a penalty of one hundred dollars ($100), to be recovered on suit brought in the name of any citizen before any tribunal having jurisdiction, half of which shall go to the treasury of the county in which such provisions may have been disregarded, and the other half to the plaintiff.
Acts 1870-1871, ch. 78, §§ 1, 2; Shan., §§ 1584, 1585; mod. Code 1932, §§ 2648, 2649; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), §§ 65-643, 65-644.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 2004–2008 · leading case: Tennie Martin, et.al. v. S. Ry. Co., et.al., 271 S.W.3d 76 (Tenn. 2008).
Tennie Martin, et.al. v. S. Ry. Co., et.al., 271 S.W.3d 76 (Tenn. 2008). “Finally, the plaintiffs argue that the exclusion of subsequent remedial measures is unnecessary in this case because Norfolk’s clearing of the vegetation was required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 65-6-132(a) (2004). According to the plaintiffs’ argument, the application…”
Dedra Shanklin, Individually & as Next Friend of Her Son Jessie Guy Shanklin v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 369 F.3d 978 (6th Cir. 2004). “Shanklin also claimed that Norfolk violated Tenn.Code Ann. § 65-6-132, which requires railroad owners to maintain trees on its grounds near the tracks.”
Shanklin v. Norfolk S. (6th Cir. 2004). “Shanklin also surrounding the crossing would have prevented Eddie claimed that Norfolk violated Tenn. Code Ann. § 65-6-132 , Shanklin from being able to see the train until he was ninety- which requires railroad owners to maintain trees on its four feet (three seconds) from the…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 65-6-132(a) — 1 case
Tennie Martin, et.al. v. S. Ry. Co., et.al., 271 S.W.3d 76 (Tenn. 2008). “Finally, the plaintiffs argue that the exclusion of subsequent remedial measures is unnecessary in this case because Norfolk’s clearing of the vegetation was required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 65-6-132(a) (2004). According to the plaintiffs’ argument, the application…”
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.