An action lies in the name of the state against the person or corporation offending, in the following cases:
Code 1858, § 3409 (deriv. Acts 1845-1846, ch. 55, § 5); Shan., § 5165; Code 1932, § 9336; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2801.
Cross-References. Chancery jurisdiction, §16-11-105.
Motor vehicles, financing sale, restraining violations, §55-13-105.
Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), §§ 8, 506.
Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attorney General, §§ 3, 4; 6 Tenn. Juris., Charities, §§ 2, 16; 7 Tenn. Juris., Corporations, §§ 91, 96, 98; 10 Tenn. Juris., Elections, § 16; 17 Tenn. Juris., Justices of Peace and General Sessions Courts, § 8; 18 Tenn. Juris., Mandamus, § 23; 19 Tenn. Juris., Municipal Corporations, § 18; 21 Tenn. Juris., Quo Warranto, §§ 1, 2, 4, 6.
Law Reviews.
Business Associations — 1955 Tennessee Survey (Paul J. Hartman), 8 Vand. L. Rev. 954.
Business Associations — 1961 Tennessee Survey (II) (Kenneth L. Roberts), 15 Vand. L. Rev. 840.
Constitutional Law — 1961 Tennessee Survey (James C. Kirby, Jr.), 14 Vand. L. Rev. 1171.
Judicial Review and the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (Toxey H. Sewell), 6 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 253.
Local Government Law — 1955 Tennessee Survey (Clyde L. Ball), 8 Vand. L. Rev. 1061.
Methods of Judicial Review over Administrative Actions in Tennessee, 13 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 657 (1984).
Rights of Minority Stockholders in Tennessee (William I. Henderson), 27 Tenn. L. Rev. 261.
Tennessee Annexation Law: History, Analysis, and Proposed Amendments (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 55 Tenn. L. Rev. 577 (1989).
The Tennessee Court System (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 189.
The Tennessee Court System — Chancery Court (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 281.
Attorney General Opinions. Enforcement of statutory requirements for constables, OAG 99-025 (2/16/99).
A “duly qualified elector of the municipality” means a person qualified to vote in an election of the “municipality,” as that term is defined in T.C.A. §7-53-101(10). Improperly appointed members of boards are generally viewed as de facto officers, and acts of such officers are considered valid. Nevertheless, as a precaution, the board, once all of its members are appropriately appointed, may wish to review the actions taken by the earlier board and vote to ratify, confirm, modify, or reject such actions. OAG 15-72, 2015 Tenn. AG LEXIS 73 (11/3/2015).
Comparative Legislation. Usurpation of office:
Ala. Code §6-6-590 et seq.
Ark. Code §16-118-105.
Ga. O.C.G.A. §45-6-5.
Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 415.010 et seq.
Miss. Code Ann. §25-1-37.
Mo. Sup. Ct. Rule 98.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-515 et seq.
Va. Code § 8.01-635 et seq.