Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-8-101 (2026)
Constitutional basis
✓ current as of May 2026
The writ of certiorari may be granted whenever authorized by law, and also in all cases where an inferior tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions has exceeded the jurisdiction conferred, or is acting illegally, when, in the judgment of the court, there is no other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy. This section does not apply to actions governed by the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Code 1858, § 3123 (deriv. Const. 1834, art. 6, § 10); Shan., § 4853; Code 1932, § 8989; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 27-801; Acts 1981, ch. 449, § 2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 304
cases (33 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Danny A. Stewart v. Derrick D. Schofield, Comm'r, Tennessee Dep't of Corr., 368 S.W.3d 457 (Tenn. 2012).
Danny A. Stewart v. Derrick D. Schofield, Comm'r, Tennessee Dep't of Corr., 368 S.W.3d 457 (Tenn. 2012). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 27-8-101 (2000). While Petitioner also named the Board and Board officials in his petition for common law writ of certiorari, the trial court properly granted their motions to dismiss because the allegations of the petition fail to state a claim on which…”
McEwen v. Tennessee Dep't of Saf., 173 S.W.3d 815 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “McEwen asserts that judicial review of final agency decisions in forfeiture cases like this one should be governed by Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-8-101 (2000), the standard of review associated with petitions for common-law writs of certiorari.”
Fallin v. Knox Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 656 S.W.2d 338 (Tenn. 1983). “I Before reaching the merits of this controversy, we deem it appropriate to consider the procedure available to litigants who seek review of zoning action taken by county or municipal authorities and the scope of review by the courts of factual determinations made by such zoning…”
McCallen v. City of Memphis, 786 S.W.2d 633 (Tenn. 1990). “” I Common law certiorari is provided for in Tenn.Code Ann. § 27-8-101: The writ of certiorari may be granted whenever authorized by law, and also in all cases where an inferior tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions has exceeded the jurisdiction conferred, or…”
Moody v. State, 160 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. 2005). “3d at 401 ; Tenn.Code Ann. § 27-8-101 (2000). While Moody clearly is challenging the legal authority of the trial court, it is equally clear that another “plain, speedy, or adequate remedy” is available to Moody.”
Cox v. State, 53 S.W.3d 287 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). “” See Tenn.Code Ann. § 27-8-101 (2000). Thus, appeals via cer-tiorari should rarely be granted to review motions that assert sentencing infirmities which do not rise to the level of illegality or voidness.”
Davis v. Shelby Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 278 S.W.3d 256 (Tenn. 2009). “2002) (applying common law writ of certiorari review in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-8-101); Hollimon v. Shelby County Gov’t, No.”
State Ex Rel. Moore & Assocs., Inc. v. West, 246 S.W.3d 569 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 27-8-101 (providing that the writ may be granted where an inferior tribunal, board, or officer exercises judicial functions); McCallen v.”
The Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., Tennessee v. The Bd. of Zoning Appeals Of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., Tennessee, 477 S.W.3d 750 (Tenn. 2015). “1983) (recognizing that the remedy of certiorari provided by Tennessee Code Annotated sections 27-8-101 and 27-9-101 through 27-9-113 is “the proper remedy for one who.”
Tidwell v. City of Memphis, 193 S.W.3d 555 (Tenn. 2006). “The employees’ petitions were filed under both the common law writ of certiorari pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-8-101 (2000) 1 and the statutory writ of certiorari pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-8-102 (2000).”
Flautt & Mann v. Council of City of Memphis, 285 S.W.3d 856 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). “The petition alleged two counts: (1) that, pursuant to a common law writ of certiorari codified at section 27-8-101 of the Tennessee Code, the circuit court should find that the Memphis City Council exceeded its jurisdiction or acted illegally and arbitrarily in denying Flautt &…”
Cooper v. Williamson Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 746 S.W.2d 176 (Tenn. 1987). “Compare T.C.A. § 27-8-101 (Supp. 1987) (common law writ of certiorari) with T.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-8-101(2000) — 2 cases
Moody v. State, 160 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. 2005). “3d at 401 ; Tenn.Code Ann. § 27-8-101 (2000). While Moody clearly is challenging the legal authority of the trial court, it is equally clear that another “plain, speedy, or adequate remedy” is available to Moody.”
State v. Smith, 278 S.W.3d 325 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008).
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.