Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-44-105 (2026)
Action nullified - Exception
✓ current as of May 2026
Any action taken at a meeting in violation of this part shall be void and of no effect; provided, that this nullification of actions taken at such meetings shall not apply to any commitment, otherwise legal, affecting the public debt of the entity concerned.
Acts 1974, ch. 442, § 5; T.C.A., § 8-4405.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: Mayhew v. Wilder, 46 S.W.3d 760 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).
Mayhew v. Wilder, 46 S.W.3d 760 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “The original plaintiffs' contention that the two bills are void is based on Tenn.Code Ann. § 8-44-105, which declares that any action taken at a meeting in violation of the Open Meetings Act shall be void and of no effect.”
Zseltvay v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 986 S.W.2d 581 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 8-44-105 states in relevant part that “[a]ny action taken at a meeting in violation of this part shall be void and of no effect_” Another section, Tenn.”
Souder v. Health Partners, Inc., 997 S.W.2d 140 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). “” T.C.A. § 8-44-105 (1993). The issue before us is one of first impression.”
Van Hooser v. Warren Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 807 S.W.2d 230 (Tenn. 1991). “T.C.A. § 8-44-105. However, our holding that the action taken by the board in this regard is of no effect does not mean that Van Hooser is entitled to the relief that she seeks.”
Dossett v. City of Kingsport, 258 S.W.3d 139 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “1990), we discussed the cure doctrine as follows: T.C.A. § 8-44-105 provides that “[a]ny action taken at a meeting in violation of this part shall be void and of no effect.”
Neese v. Paris Special Sch. Dist., 813 S.W.2d 432 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990). “T.C.A. § 8-44-105 provides that “[a]ny action taken at a meeting in violation of this part shall be void and of no effect.”
Arlie \Max\" Watson v. Larry Waters", 375 S.W.3d 282 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). “I, § 6 right to a jury trial by the trial court granting summary judgment where there were material factual disputes? Did the trial court err by failing to apply T.C.A. § 8-44-105 to void proceedings that were required to have occurred pri- or to being a valid June 23, [2008]…”
Johnston v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 320 S.W.3d 299 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “” T.C.A. § 8-44-105 (2002). Tennessee courts interpreting the Act, however, have recognized that its provisions should not be interpreted in such a way that, once a violation of the Open Meetings Act has occurred, the public *310 body is thereafter foreclosed from acting on the…”
Abou-Sakher v. Humphreys Cnty., 955 S.W.2d 65 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 8-44-105 (1993). Accordingly, the airport authority’s decision to hire Mr.”
Thompson v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div., 244 S.W.3d 815 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “…such meetings shall not apply to any commitment, otherwise legal, affecting the public debt of the entity concerned. Tenn.Code Ann. § 8-44-105 (2002).”
Turnbull Pres. Grp., L.L.C. v. Dickson Cnty., Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-44-105 . 2 We note that the meeting minutes from the July 23, 2020 Planning Commission do not appear in the record.”
Curtis S. Person v. The Bd. of Commissioners of Shelby Cnty., Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-44-105 . The issue then is whether the fact that the Commission rescinded the November Resolution rendered the Open Meetings Act claim moot.”
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.