Tenn. Code Ann. » Tenn. Code / Title 8 / Chapter 44 / Part 1
Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-44-101 (2026)

Policy - Construction

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

Acts 1974, ch. 442, §§ 1, 8; T.C.A., § 8-4401.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 67 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Bob Fannon, Individually & as a City Councilman for the City of LaFollette v. City of LaFollotte, 329 S.W.3d 418 (Tenn. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bob Fannon, Individually & as a City Councilman for the City of LaFollette v. City of LaFollotte, 329 S.W.3d 418 (Tenn. 2010). · cites it 11× “OPINION Facts and Procedural History On July 10, 2007, Bob Fannon (the “Plaintiff”), a councilman for the City of LaFollette, filed a suit for declaratory judgment,1 contending that councilmen Hansford Hatmaker and Mike Stanfield, named as defendants individually and in their…”
Mayhew v. Wilder, 46 S.W.3d 760 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 6× “The complaint alleged that such secret meetings violated Article II, Section 22 of the Tennessee Constitution, Tenn.Code Ann. § 8-44-101, et seq., and the due process provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Cooper v. Williamson Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 746 S.W.2d 176 (Tenn. 1987). · cites it 8× “Plaintiff was precluded from presenting any additional, noncumulative evidence on the issue of the propriety of his dismissal and was limited to the introduction of evidence on whether the Board had violated the Tennessee Open Meetings Act, T.C.A. §§ 8-44-101, et seq. Plaintiff…”
Smith Cnty. Educ. Ass'n v. Anderson, 676 S.W.2d 328 (Tenn. 1984). · cites it 8× “§ 49-5-601 to 5-604, or the Open Meetings Act, T.C.A. § 8-44-101 to 106, entitled to a jury trial and if so, what is the effect of the verdict? (3) Does the unilateral change of benefits during negotiations amount to an unlawful act under T.”
Arnold v. Tennessee Bd. of Paroles, 956 S.W.2d 478 (Tenn. 1997). · cites it 4× “Each petitioner contended that in reviewing his file for parole the Board of Paroles (Board) failed to hold an open meeting as required by the Open Meetings Act, Tenn.Code Ann. § 8-44-101 et seq. (1993) 1 Further, each petitioner challenged the substantive basis for the Board’s…”
Metro. Air Rsch. Testing Auth., Inc. v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville, 842 S.W.2d 611 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “Second, it contends that the procurement process violated the competitive bidding requirements contained in the Metropolitan Charter and ordinances and in the bid specifications.”
Neese v. Paris Special Sch. Dist., 813 S.W.2d 432 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 8× “T.C.A. § 8-44-101 et seq. The Circuit Court at Henry County held that no such violation was evident from the facts.”
Van Hooser v. Warren Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 807 S.W.2d 230 (Tenn. 1991). · cites it 8× “, and the Open Meetings Act, T.C.A. §§ 8-44-101 et seq. The teacher in question, Marilyn Van Hooser, sued for reinstatement and back pay, claiming that she was improperly suspended and then dismissed.”
Whittemore v. Brentwood Plan. Comm'n, 835 S.W.2d 11 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “[6] Each of these meetings complied with the Sunshine Law, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 8-44-101 , -108 (1988 & Supp.”
Swift v. Campbell, 159 S.W.3d 565 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 8-44-101 to -108 (2002).”
Larry Sneed v. The City of Red Bank, Tennessee, 459 S.W.3d 17 (Tenn. 2014). · cites it 2× “2014); (5) violations of-Tennessee Code Annotated section 8-44-101 (2011 & Supp. 2014), known as the “Tennessee Open Meetings Act"; (6) violations of Red Bank municipal ordinances; (7) civil conspiracy; and (8) vicarious liability.”
Dingman v. Harvell, 814 S.W.2d 362 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 6× “He alleges that he was terminated as Chief of Police on January 2,1989, and that the defendants prior thereto met together in secret on more than one occasion, conducted deliberations concerning his position as Chief of Police and therefore the actions of the defendants were in…”
Show all 67 citing cases →
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-44-101(a) — 9 cases
Smith Cnty. Educ. Ass'n v. Anderson, 676 S.W.2d 328 (Tenn. 1984). “§ 49-5-601 to 5-604, or the Open Meetings Act, T.C.A. § 8-44-101 to 106, entitled to a jury trial and if so, what is the effect of the verdict? (3) Does the unilateral change of benefits during negotiations amount to an unlawful act under T.”
Metro. Air Rsch. Testing Auth., Inc. v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville, 842 S.W.2d 611 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992). “Second, it contends that the procurement process violated the competitive bidding requirements contained in the Metropolitan Charter and ordinances and in the bid specifications.”
Souder v. Health Partners, Inc., 997 S.W.2d 140 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
Baltrip v. Norris, 23 S.W.3d 336 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).
Dennis Allen v. City of Memphis, Tennessee, 397 S.W.3d 572 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-44-101(a)(2002) — 1 case
Cherokee Country Club, Inc. v. City of Knoxville, 152 S.W.3d 466 (Tenn. 2004).
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.