Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307 (2026)

Jurisdiction - Claims - Waiver of actions - Standard for tort liability - Damages - Immunities - Definitions - Transfer of claims

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

Amended by 2023 Tenn. Acts, ch. 48, s 4, eff. 3/21/2023.

Amended by 2022 Tenn. Acts, ch. 1117, s 2, eff. 6/1/2022.

Amended by 2021EX3 Tenn. Acts, ch. 6, Secs.s 2, s 3, s 4 eff. 11/12/2021.

Amended by 2020EX2 Tenn. Acts, ch. 1, s 4, eff. 8/17/2020.

Amended by 2018 Tenn. Acts, ch. 873, s 1, eff. 5/3/2018.

Amended by 2017 Tenn. Acts, ch. 423, s 2, eff. 5/18/2017.

Amended by 2017 Tenn. Acts, ch. 344, s 1, eff. 5/9/2017.

Amended by 2014 Tenn. Acts, ch. 795, s 14, eff. 1/1/2015.

Acts 1984, ch. 972, § 8; 1985, ch. 36, § 12; 1985, ch. 105, §§ 1, 4-7, 16; 1985, ch. 322, § 3; 1986, ch. 626, §§ 1-3; 1986, ch. 749, § 1; 1986, ch. 911, §§ 1, 2, 4; 1988, ch. 890, § 1; 1989, ch. 28, § 2; 1989, ch. 491, §§ 1, 2, 5; 1991, ch. 133, § 3; 1991, ch. 499, § 2; 1993, ch. 494, § 2; 1996, ch. 698, § 1; 1996, ch. 1036, § 1; 1998, ch. 785, §§ 2 - 7, 18, 31, 32; 1999, ch. 458, §§ 1, 4; 2000, ch. 573, § 1; 2003 , ch. 212, § 8; 2004, ch. 699, § 1; 2005, ch. 384, §§ 1 - 3; 2012 , ch. 798, § 4.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 326 cases (40 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Shell v. State, 893 S.W.2d 416 (Tenn. 1995).
Shell v. State, 893 S.W.2d 416 (Tenn. 1995). · cites it 91× “This appeal presents two issues for our review: (1) whether the appellants' action, which was filed in October 1989, was viable at that time in light of the legislature's repeal in May 1989 of the language in Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307 (a)(1)(N) authorizing suits against the…”
Stewart v. State, 33 S.W.3d 785 (Tenn. 2000). · cites it 59× “§ 20-13-102(a) (1994), 2 this jurisdiction is limited only to those claims specified in Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(a). If a claim falls outside of the categories specified in section 9-8-307(a), then the state retains its immunity from suit, and a claimant may not…”
Lucas v. State, 141 S.W.3d 121 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 57× “The court predicates its opinion upon its statement: T.C.A. § 9-8-307 provides the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to decide certain monetary claims against the State.”
Conley v. State, 141 S.W.3d 591 (Tenn. 2004). · cites it 40× “This Court has recognized that “[wjhile the Claims Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to hear claims arising against the state, this jurisdiction is limited only to those claims specified in Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(a).”
Johnson v. LeBonheur Child.'s Med. Ctr., 74 S.W.3d 338 (Tenn. 2002). · cites it 25× “Martindale because the physician residents were immune from liability as state employees under Tenn.Code Ann. § 9-8-307. On December 8,1998, the trial court entered an order overruling the motion.”
Northland Ins. Co. v. State, 33 S.W.3d 727 (Tenn. 2000). · cites it 20× “The jurisdiction of the Claims Commission is set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated' section 9-8-307. That statute allows for suits against the State in the Claims Commission alleging that state employees have maintained a dangerous condition on a state maintained highway.”
Woo-Jun Ki v. State, 78 S.W.3d 876 (Tenn. 2002). · cites it 23× “The award of damages is therefore limited to $300,000 pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 9-8-307. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Timothy Sumner v. Campbell Clinic, PC, 498 S.W.3d 20 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 32× “Kutsikovich, a State of Tennessee employee, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307 (b)? 3. Whether Plaintiffs claims against Dr.”
Mullins v. State, 320 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2010). · cites it 23× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307 (a)(l)(E). In determining whether the General Assembly intended to waive sovereign immunity for a claim against the State of Tennessee by providing jurisdiction to the Claims Commission, our primary focus must remain on the actual words chosen and…”
Hembree v. State, 925 S.W.2d 513 (Tenn. 1996). · cites it 22× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307 (a)(5)(Supp.l984).”
Comput. Shoppe, Inc. v. State, 780 S.W.2d 729 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 24× “When the Computer Shoppe filed its complaint, the Commission’s authority to adjudicate contract claims was found in Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307 (a)(l)(L) (Supp.”
Luther v. Compton, 5 S.W.3d 635 (Tenn. 1999). · cites it 16× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307 (h)(Supp.1998).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(2)(3) — 1 case
Stewart v. State (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(E) — 1 case
Russell Wellington v. State (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(I) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(J) — 2 cases
Sweeney v. State, 768 S.W.2d 253 (Tenn. 1989).
Mark Thomas Church v. Charles Blalock & Sons, Inc., 492 S.W.3d 263 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(K)(i) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a) — 28 cases
Stewart v. State, 33 S.W.3d 785 (Tenn. 2000). “§ 20-13-102(a) (1994), 2 this jurisdiction is limited only to those claims specified in Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(a). If a claim falls outside of the categories specified in section 9-8-307(a), then the state retains its immunity from suit, and a claimant may not…”
Mullins v. State, 320 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2010). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307 (a)(l)(E). In determining whether the General Assembly intended to waive sovereign immunity for a claim against the State of Tennessee by providing jurisdiction to the Claims Commission, our primary focus must remain on the actual words chosen and…”
Conley v. State, 141 S.W.3d 591 (Tenn. 2004). “This Court has recognized that “[wjhile the Claims Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to hear claims arising against the state, this jurisdiction is limited only to those claims specified in Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(a).”
Timothy Sumner v. Campbell Clinic, PC, 498 S.W.3d 20 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). “Kutsikovich, a State of Tennessee employee, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307 (b)? 3. Whether Plaintiffs claims against Dr.”
Carroll v. Whitney, 29 S.W.3d 14 (Tenn. 2000).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1) — 24 cases
Joe Mosley v. State of Tennessee, 475 S.W.3d 767 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015).
Stewart v. State, 33 S.W.3d 785 (Tenn. 2000). “§ 20-13-102(a) (1994), 2 this jurisdiction is limited only to those claims specified in Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(a). If a claim falls outside of the categories specified in section 9-8-307(a), then the state retains its immunity from suit, and a claimant may not…”
Conley v. State, 141 S.W.3d 591 (Tenn. 2004). “This Court has recognized that “[wjhile the Claims Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to hear claims arising against the state, this jurisdiction is limited only to those claims specified in Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(a).”
Begley v. State, 162 S.W.3d 535 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
Goodermote v. State, 856 S.W.2d 715 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(3) — 1 case
Candace Mullins v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(A) — 3 cases
Stewart v. State, 33 S.W.3d 785 (Tenn. 2000). “§ 20-13-102(a) (1994), 2 this jurisdiction is limited only to those claims specified in Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(a). If a claim falls outside of the categories specified in section 9-8-307(a), then the state retains its immunity from suit, and a claimant may not…”
Begley v. State, 162 S.W.3d 535 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(B) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(C) — 18 cases
Bowman v. State, 206 S.W.3d 467 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).
Byrd v. State, 150 S.W.3d 414 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
Byrd v. State, 905 S.W.2d 195 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995).
Parent v. State, 991 S.W.2d 240 (Tenn. 1999).
Mark Thomas Church v. Charles Blalock & Sons, Inc., 492 S.W.3d 263 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(D) — 5 cases
Conley v. State, 141 S.W.3d 591 (Tenn. 2004). “This Court has recognized that “[wjhile the Claims Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to hear claims arising against the state, this jurisdiction is limited only to those claims specified in Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(a).”
Shell v. State, 893 S.W.2d 416 (Tenn. 1995). “This appeal presents two issues for our review: (1) whether the appellants' action, which was filed in October 1989, was viable at that time in light of the legislature's repeal in May 1989 of the language in Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307 (a)(1)(N) authorizing suits against the…”
Patricia Conley v. State (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).
Tonya Davis v. Univ. Phy. (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(E) — 23 cases
Stewart v. State, 33 S.W.3d 785 (Tenn. 2000). “§ 20-13-102(a) (1994), 2 this jurisdiction is limited only to those claims specified in Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(a). If a claim falls outside of the categories specified in section 9-8-307(a), then the state retains its immunity from suit, and a claimant may not…”
Mullins v. State, 320 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2010). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307 (a)(l)(E). In determining whether the General Assembly intended to waive sovereign immunity for a claim against the State of Tennessee by providing jurisdiction to the Claims Commission, our primary focus must remain on the actual words chosen and…”
Hembree v. State, 925 S.W.2d 513 (Tenn. 1996). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307 (a)(5)(Supp.l984).”
Cox v. State, 844 S.W.2d 173 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).
Joe Mosley v. State of Tennessee, 475 S.W.3d 767 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(F) — 10 cases
Stewart v. State, 33 S.W.3d 785 (Tenn. 2000). “§ 20-13-102(a) (1994), 2 this jurisdiction is limited only to those claims specified in Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(a). If a claim falls outside of the categories specified in section 9-8-307(a), then the state retains its immunity from suit, and a claimant may not…”
Charles Fossett v. State of TN (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).
Fred Dean v. Donal Campbell (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).
Richard Laude v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(G) — 1 case
Cox v. State, 844 S.W.2d 173 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(H) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(I) — 11 cases
Austin v. State, 831 S.W.2d 789 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991).
Keith Allen v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(J) — 10 cases
Begley v. State, 162 S.W.3d 535 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
Keith Allen v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
Denise Elliott v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(K) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(L) — 9 cases
Fed. Sign v. Texas S. Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401 (Tex. 1997).
Lisa Womble v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013).
Xingkui Guo v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(M) — 1 case
Coleman v. State (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(N) — 13 cases
Shell v. State, 893 S.W.2d 416 (Tenn. 1995). “This appeal presents two issues for our review: (1) whether the appellants' action, which was filed in October 1989, was viable at that time in light of the legislature's repeal in May 1989 of the language in Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307 (a)(1)(N) authorizing suits against the…”
Joe Mosley v. State of Tennessee, 475 S.W.3d 767 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015).
Richard Madkins v. State (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(R) — 3 cases
Cashion v. State (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).
Kenneth Wright v. Larry Seay (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(k) — 2 cases
Diana Morris v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(15) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(19)(B) — 1 case
Angel v. Jackson, 724 S.W.2d 736 (Tenn. 1987).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(2) — 1 case
Hedgepeth v. Tennessee, 33 F. Supp. 2d 668 (W.D. Tenn. 1998).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(2)(A) — 1 case
Hedgepeth v. Tennessee, 33 F. Supp. 2d 668 (W.D. Tenn. 1998).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(3) — 15 cases
Northland Ins. Co. v. State, 33 S.W.3d 727 (Tenn. 2000). “The jurisdiction of the Claims Commission is set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated' section 9-8-307. That statute allows for suits against the State in the Claims Commission alleging that state employees have maintained a dangerous condition on a state maintained highway.”
Stewart v. State, 33 S.W.3d 785 (Tenn. 2000). “§ 20-13-102(a) (1994), 2 this jurisdiction is limited only to those claims specified in Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(a). If a claim falls outside of the categories specified in section 9-8-307(a), then the state retains its immunity from suit, and a claimant may not…”
Lucas v. State, 141 S.W.3d 121 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). “The court predicates its opinion upon its statement: T.C.A. § 9-8-307 provides the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to decide certain monetary claims against the State.”
Learue by Next Friend Learue v. State, 757 S.W.2d 3 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987).
Dobson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 324 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(3)(b) — 1 case
Mirabella v. Univ. of Tennessee, 915 F. Supp. 925 (E.D. Tenn. 1994).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(3)(d) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(5) — 1 case
Hembree v. State, 925 S.W.2d 513 (Tenn. 1996). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307 (a)(5)(Supp.l984).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(C)(I)(J) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(I) — 1 case
Sweeney v. State, 768 S.W.2d 253 (Tenn. 1989).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(I)(J) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(I)(N) — 1 case
Shell v. State, 893 S.W.2d 416 (Tenn. 1995). “This appeal presents two issues for our review: (1) whether the appellants' action, which was filed in October 1989, was viable at that time in light of the legislature's repeal in May 1989 of the language in Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307 (a)(1)(N) authorizing suits against the…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(J) — 2 cases
Sweeney v. State, 768 S.W.2d 253 (Tenn. 1989).
Mark Thomas Church v. Charles Blalock & Sons, Inc., 492 S.W.3d 263 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(h) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(l) — 7 cases
Stewart v. State, 33 S.W.3d 785 (Tenn. 2000). “§ 20-13-102(a) (1994), 2 this jurisdiction is limited only to those claims specified in Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(a). If a claim falls outside of the categories specified in section 9-8-307(a), then the state retains its immunity from suit, and a claimant may not…”
Northland Ins. Co. v. State, 33 S.W.3d 727 (Tenn. 2000). “The jurisdiction of the Claims Commission is set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated' section 9-8-307. That statute allows for suits against the State in the Claims Commission alleging that state employees have maintained a dangerous condition on a state maintained highway.”
Williams v. State, 139 S.W.3d 308 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
Goodermote v. State, 856 S.W.2d 715 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993).
Byrd v. State, 150 S.W.3d 414 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(l)(A) — 1 case
Brown v. State, 333 S.W.3d 102 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(l)(B) — 1 case
Byrd v. State, 150 S.W.3d 414 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(l)(C) — 9 cases
Sanders v. State, 783 S.W.2d 948 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989).
Dobson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 324 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).
Hames v. State, 808 S.W.2d 41 (Tenn. 1991).
Parent v. State, 991 S.W.2d 240 (Tenn. 1999).
Woo-Jun Ki v. State, 78 S.W.3d 876 (Tenn. 2002). “The award of damages is therefore limited to $300,000 pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 9-8-307. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(l)(C)(I) — 1 case
Lucas v. State, 141 S.W.3d 121 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). “The court predicates its opinion upon its statement: T.C.A. § 9-8-307 provides the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to decide certain monetary claims against the State.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(l)(D) — 3 cases
Conley v. State, 141 S.W.3d 591 (Tenn. 2004). “This Court has recognized that “[wjhile the Claims Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to hear claims arising against the state, this jurisdiction is limited only to those claims specified in Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(a).”
Shell v. State, 893 S.W.2d 416 (Tenn. 1995). “This appeal presents two issues for our review: (1) whether the appellants' action, which was filed in October 1989, was viable at that time in light of the legislature's repeal in May 1989 of the language in Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307 (a)(1)(N) authorizing suits against the…”
Younger v. State, 205 S.W.3d 494 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(l)(E) — 8 cases
Stewart v. State, 33 S.W.3d 785 (Tenn. 2000). “§ 20-13-102(a) (1994), 2 this jurisdiction is limited only to those claims specified in Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(a). If a claim falls outside of the categories specified in section 9-8-307(a), then the state retains its immunity from suit, and a claimant may not…”
Conley v. State, 141 S.W.3d 591 (Tenn. 2004). “This Court has recognized that “[wjhile the Claims Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to hear claims arising against the state, this jurisdiction is limited only to those claims specified in Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(a).”
Hembree v. State, 925 S.W.2d 513 (Tenn. 1996). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307 (a)(5)(Supp.l984).”
Mullins v. State, 320 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2010). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307 (a)(l)(E). In determining whether the General Assembly intended to waive sovereign immunity for a claim against the State of Tennessee by providing jurisdiction to the Claims Commission, our primary focus must remain on the actual words chosen and…”
Byrd v. State, 150 S.W.3d 414 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(l)(F) — 1 case
Stewart v. State, 33 S.W.3d 785 (Tenn. 2000). “§ 20-13-102(a) (1994), 2 this jurisdiction is limited only to those claims specified in Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(a). If a claim falls outside of the categories specified in section 9-8-307(a), then the state retains its immunity from suit, and a claimant may not…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(l)(I) — 4 cases
Lucas v. State, 141 S.W.3d 121 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). “The court predicates its opinion upon its statement: T.C.A. § 9-8-307 provides the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to decide certain monetary claims against the State.”
Goodermote v. State, 856 S.W.2d 715 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993).
Helton v. Knox Cnty., Tenn., 922 S.W.2d 877 (Tenn. 1996).
Austin v. State, 796 S.W.2d 449 (Tenn. 1990).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(l)(J) — 5 cases
Northland Ins. Co. v. State, 33 S.W.3d 727 (Tenn. 2000). “The jurisdiction of the Claims Commission is set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated' section 9-8-307. That statute allows for suits against the State in the Claims Commission alleging that state employees have maintained a dangerous condition on a state maintained highway.”
Cox v. State, 844 S.W.2d 173 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).
Lucas v. State, 141 S.W.3d 121 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). “The court predicates its opinion upon its statement: T.C.A. § 9-8-307 provides the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to decide certain monetary claims against the State.”
Pool v. State, 987 S.W.2d 566 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
Mark Thomas Church v. Charles Blalock & Sons, Inc., 492 S.W.3d 263 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(l)(K) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(l)(L) — 5 cases
Comput. Shoppe, Inc. v. State, 780 S.W.2d 729 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989). “When the Computer Shoppe filed its complaint, the Commission’s authority to adjudicate contract claims was found in Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307 (a)(l)(L) (Supp.”
Ku v. State, 104 S.W.3d 870 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
Dishmon v. Shelby State Cmty. Coll., 15 S.W.3d 477 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).
Woolsey v. Hunt, 932 F.2d 555 (6th Cir. 1991).
Fed. Sign v. Texas S. Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401 (Tex. 1997).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(l)(N) — 9 cases
Shell v. State, 893 S.W.2d 416 (Tenn. 1995). “This appeal presents two issues for our review: (1) whether the appellants' action, which was filed in October 1989, was viable at that time in light of the legislature's repeal in May 1989 of the language in Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307 (a)(1)(N) authorizing suits against the…”
Byrd v. State, 150 S.W.3d 414 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
Comput. Shoppe, Inc. v. State, 780 S.W.2d 729 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989). “When the Computer Shoppe filed its complaint, the Commission’s authority to adjudicate contract claims was found in Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307 (a)(l)(L) (Supp.”
Mullins v. State, 320 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2010). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307 (a)(l)(E). In determining whether the General Assembly intended to waive sovereign immunity for a claim against the State of Tennessee by providing jurisdiction to the Claims Commission, our primary focus must remain on the actual words chosen and…”
Williams v. State, 139 S.W.3d 308 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(l)(O) — 1 case
Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. McReynolds, 886 S.W.2d 233 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(l)(R) — 1 case
Byrd v. State, 150 S.W.3d 414 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(l)(V) — 1 case
Byrd v. State, 150 S.W.3d 414 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(b) — 17 cases
Haley v. Univ. of Tennessee-Knoxville, 188 S.W.3d 518 (Tenn. 2006).
Timothy Sumner v. Campbell Clinic, PC, 498 S.W.3d 20 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). “Kutsikovich, a State of Tennessee employee, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307 (b)? 3. Whether Plaintiffs claims against Dr.”
Bryant-Bruce v. Vanderbilt Univ., Inc., 974 F. Supp. 1127 (M.D. Tenn. 1997).
Judith Moore-Pennoyer v. State of Tennessee, 515 S.W.3d 271 (Tenn. 2017).
Wells v. Tennessee Bd. of Regents, 231 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 2007).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(c) — 17 cases
Conley v. State, 141 S.W.3d 591 (Tenn. 2004). “This Court has recognized that “[wjhile the Claims Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to hear claims arising against the state, this jurisdiction is limited only to those claims specified in Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(a).”
Lucas v. State, 141 S.W.3d 121 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). “The court predicates its opinion upon its statement: T.C.A. § 9-8-307 provides the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to decide certain monetary claims against the State.”
Stewart v. State, 33 S.W.3d 785 (Tenn. 2000). “§ 20-13-102(a) (1994), 2 this jurisdiction is limited only to those claims specified in Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(a). If a claim falls outside of the categories specified in section 9-8-307(a), then the state retains its immunity from suit, and a claimant may not…”
Atkinson v. State, 337 S.W.3d 199 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010).
Hames v. State, 808 S.W.2d 41 (Tenn. 1991).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(d) — 21 cases
Lucas v. State, 141 S.W.3d 121 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). “The court predicates its opinion upon its statement: T.C.A. § 9-8-307 provides the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to decide certain monetary claims against the State.”
Reid v. State, 9 S.W.3d 788 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).
Cox v. State, 844 S.W.2d 173 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).
Dobson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 324 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).
Beare Co. v. State, 814 S.W.2d 715 (Tenn. 1991).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(e) — 13 cases
Woo-Jun Ki v. State, 78 S.W.3d 876 (Tenn. 2002). “The award of damages is therefore limited to $300,000 pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 9-8-307. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Wells ex rel. Baker v. State, 435 S.W.3d 734 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013).
Hembree v. State, 925 S.W.2d 513 (Tenn. 1996). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307 (a)(5)(Supp.l984).”
Lucas v. State, 141 S.W.3d 121 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). “The court predicates its opinion upon its statement: T.C.A. § 9-8-307 provides the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to decide certain monetary claims against the State.”
Carroll v. Whitney, 29 S.W.3d 14 (Tenn. 2000).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(g) — 2 cases
Lucas v. State, 141 S.W.3d 121 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). “The court predicates its opinion upon its statement: T.C.A. § 9-8-307 provides the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to decide certain monetary claims against the State.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(h) — 42 cases
Luther v. Compton, 5 S.W.3d 635 (Tenn. 1999). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307 (h)(Supp.1998).”
Johnson v. LeBonheur Child.'s Med. Ctr., 74 S.W.3d 338 (Tenn. 2002). “Martindale because the physician residents were immune from liability as state employees under Tenn.Code Ann. § 9-8-307. On December 8,1998, the trial court entered an order overruling the motion.”
Biscan v. Brown, 160 S.W.3d 462 (Tenn. 2005).
Shelburne v. Frontier Health, 126 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. 2003).
Whitaker v. Whirlpool Corp., 32 S.W.3d 222 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(i)(1) — 3 cases
Ronnie Brown v. State (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).
W.J. Gray v. State of TN (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(i)(l) — 2 cases
Turner v. State, 184 S.W.3d 701 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).
Locust v. State, 912 S.W.2d 716 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995).
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.