Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-42-101 (2026)

Chapter definitions

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

As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:

Amended by 2022 Tenn. Acts, ch. 853, s 1, eff. 4/20/2022.

Amended by 2017 Tenn. Acts, ch. 213, s 1, eff. 4/28/2017.

Amended by 2014 Tenn. Acts, ch. 830, s 1, eff. 7/1/2014.

Amended by 2013 Tenn. Acts, ch. 32, s 3, eff. 3/20/2013.

Acts 1973, ch. 128, § 1; T.C.A., § 8-4201; Acts 1980, ch. 527, § 1; 1984, ch. 972, § 19; 1985, ch. 105, § 11; 1989, ch. 28, § 1; 1989, ch. 63, § 1; 1993, ch. 530, § 1; 1995, ch. 370, §§1, 9, 10; 1995, ch. 505, § 1; 1996, ch. 1079, § 28; 1999, ch. 461, §1; 2000, ch. 947, § 6; 2001, ch. 377, §§ 1, 2; 2004, ch. 908, §2; 2009 , ch. 100, § 1; 2009 , ch. 468, § 3; 2009 , ch. 598, § 12; 2010 , ch. 1100, § 20; 2012 , ch. 575, §§ 1, 2; 2012 , ch. 798, § 3.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 58 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: Shelburne v. Frontier Health, 126 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. 2003).
Shelburne v. Frontier Health, 126 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. 2003). · cites it 10× “We therefore conclude that it is not necessary for an individual to be admitted to or discharged from a state-owned mental health institute for a health care provider to meet the requirements of section 8-42-101(3)0». In addition, health care providers who screen incarcerated…”
Lamb v. Tenth Jud. Dist. Drug Task Force, 944 F. Supp. 2d 586 (E.D. Tenn. 2013). · cites it 11× “Based on Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 8-42-101 (3)(C) and 8-7-110(e), “the Task Force is a state entity, and its members are state employees.”
Johnson v. LeBonheur Child.'s Med. Ctr., 74 S.W.3d 338 (Tenn. 2002). · cites it 3× “They were compensated by UT and thus were state employees pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 8-42-101(3). While in the UT training program, both resident physicians worked on rotation at LeBonheur.”
Jordan v. Knox Cnty., 213 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2007). · cites it 2× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-42-101 (3)(C) (Supp.2006).”
Younger v. State, 205 S.W.3d 494 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 5× “2005), which sets out the jurisdiction of the Claims Commission and provides, in relevant part, as follows: (a)(1) The commission or each commissioner sitting individually has exclusive jurisdiction to determine all monetary claims against the state based on the acts or…”
Lucas v. State, 141 S.W.3d 121 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “" Tenn.Code Ann. § 8-42-101(3)(A). 4 . Satterfield, in addition to his false testimony, attempted to persuade a co-defendant, Apple, to lie and claim to have been a witness to the murder and further gave Apple "hush money” after the plaintiffs’ trials in order to induce his…”
Thompson v. Reg'l Med. Ctr. at Memphis, 748 F. Supp. 575 (W.D. Tenn. 1990). · cites it 7× “Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate how an agency relationship between The Med and the UT Doctors removes the UT Doctors from the scope of Tenn.Code Ann. § 8-42-101(a)(3). Plaintiff does not argue that The Med had exclusive control over the UT Doctors but contends that The Med…”
Dobson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 324 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). “— (a)(1) The commission or each commissioner sitting individually has exclusive jurisdiction to *330 determine all monetary claims against the state based on the acts or omissions of “state employees,” as defined in § 8-42-101(3), falling within one (1) or more of the following…”
Lewis v. State, 73 S.W.3d 88 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “§ 9-8-307 defines the jurisdiction of the Claims Commission: (a)(1) The commission or each commissioner sitting individually has exclusive jurisdiction to determine all monetary claims against the state based on the acts or omissions of “state employees,” as defined in §…”
Williams v. State, 139 S.W.3d 308 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). “§ 9-8-307 provides, in pertinent part: (a)(1) The commission or each commissioner sitting individually has exclusive jurisdiction to determine all monetary claims against the state based on the acts or omissions of “state employees,” as defined in § 8-42-101(3), falling with…”
Perez v. Wade, 652 F. Supp. 2d 901 (W.D. Tenn. 2009). · cites it 3× “§ 8-42-101(3)(C) provides that "State employee” under this chapter and under title 9, chapter 8, also includes, as a volunteer, a person designated by the district attorney general of each judicial district as a member of a judicial district task force relating to the…”
Begley v. State, 162 S.W.3d 535 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “§ 9-8-307(a)(1) provides, in pertinent part: (a)(1) The commission or each commissioner sitting individually has exclusive jurisdiction to determine all monetary claims against the state based on the acts or omissions of "state employees," as defined in § 8-42-101(3), falling…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-42-101(3) — 33 cases
Johnson v. LeBonheur Child.'s Med. Ctr., 74 S.W.3d 338 (Tenn. 2002). “They were compensated by UT and thus were state employees pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 8-42-101(3). While in the UT training program, both resident physicians worked on rotation at LeBonheur.”
Shelburne v. Frontier Health, 126 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. 2003). “We therefore conclude that it is not necessary for an individual to be admitted to or discharged from a state-owned mental health institute for a health care provider to meet the requirements of section 8-42-101(3)0». In addition, health care providers who screen incarcerated…”
Dobson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 324 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). “— (a)(1) The commission or each commissioner sitting individually has exclusive jurisdiction to *330 determine all monetary claims against the state based on the acts or omissions of “state employees,” as defined in § 8-42-101(3), falling within one (1) or more of the following…”
Lewis v. State, 73 S.W.3d 88 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “§ 9-8-307 defines the jurisdiction of the Claims Commission: (a)(1) The commission or each commissioner sitting individually has exclusive jurisdiction to determine all monetary claims against the state based on the acts or omissions of “state employees,” as defined in §…”
Williams v. State, 139 S.W.3d 308 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). “§ 9-8-307 provides, in pertinent part: (a)(1) The commission or each commissioner sitting individually has exclusive jurisdiction to determine all monetary claims against the state based on the acts or omissions of “state employees,” as defined in § 8-42-101(3), falling with…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-42-101(3)(A) — 6 cases
Lucas v. State, 141 S.W.3d 121 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). “" Tenn.Code Ann. § 8-42-101(3)(A). 4 . Satterfield, in addition to his false testimony, attempted to persuade a co-defendant, Apple, to lie and claim to have been a witness to the murder and further gave Apple "hush money” after the plaintiffs’ trials in order to induce his…”
Younger v. State, 205 S.W.3d 494 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “2005), which sets out the jurisdiction of the Claims Commission and provides, in relevant part, as follows: (a)(1) The commission or each commissioner sitting individually has exclusive jurisdiction to determine all monetary claims against the state based on the acts or…”
Glenda Cooper v. State, 106 S.W.3d 688 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-42-101(3)(C) — 2 cases
Lamb v. Tenth Jud. Dist. Drug Task Force, 944 F. Supp. 2d 586 (E.D. Tenn. 2013). “Based on Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 8-42-101 (3)(C) and 8-7-110(e), “the Task Force is a state entity, and its members are state employees.”
Perez v. Wade, 652 F. Supp. 2d 901 (W.D. Tenn. 2009). “§ 8-42-101(3)(C) provides that "State employee” under this chapter and under title 9, chapter 8, also includes, as a volunteer, a person designated by the district attorney general of each judicial district as a member of a judicial district task force relating to the…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-42-101(3)(D) — 3 cases
Shelburne v. Frontier Health, 126 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. 2003). “We therefore conclude that it is not necessary for an individual to be admitted to or discharged from a state-owned mental health institute for a health care provider to meet the requirements of section 8-42-101(3)0». In addition, health care providers who screen incarcerated…”
Shirley Shelburne v. Frontier Health (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-42-101(a)(3) — 3 cases
Thompson v. Reg'l Med. Ctr. at Memphis, 748 F. Supp. 575 (W.D. Tenn. 1990). “Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate how an agency relationship between The Med and the UT Doctors removes the UT Doctors from the scope of Tenn.Code Ann. § 8-42-101(a)(3). Plaintiff does not argue that The Med had exclusive control over the UT Doctors but contends that The Med…”
Ronald Paul v. State (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).
Coleman v. State (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-42-101(a)(3)(A) — 2 cases
Thompson v. Reg'l Med. Ctr. at Memphis, 748 F. Supp. 575 (W.D. Tenn. 1990). “Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate how an agency relationship between The Med and the UT Doctors removes the UT Doctors from the scope of Tenn.Code Ann. § 8-42-101(a)(3). Plaintiff does not argue that The Med had exclusive control over the UT Doctors but contends that The Med…”
Ronald Paul v. State (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).
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.