Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-8-102 (2026)
Cases in which writ lies
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) Certiorari lies:
- (1) On suggestion of diminution;
- (2) Where no appeal is given;
- (3) As a substitute for appeal;
- (4) Instead of audita querela; or
- (5) Instead of writ of error.
- (b) This section does not apply to actions governed by the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Code 1858, § 3124; Shan., § 4854; Code 1932, § 8990; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 27-802; Acts 1981, ch. 449, § 2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47
cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: Tidwell v. City of Memphis, 193 S.W.3d 555 (Tenn. 2006).
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). 2 The parties now agree that the…”
State of Tennessee, on Relation of v. Calvin Howell v. Jimmy Farris, 562 S.W.3d 432 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). “Howell could seek compensatory damages in this proceeding because “[t]he attorneys have agreed that these damages would be appropriate under the statutory writ of certiorari under Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-8-102 (2).” However, in this same order, the Chancery Court dismissed Mr.”
Cooper v. Williamson Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 746 S.W.2d 176 (Tenn. 1987). “1987) (common law writ of certiorari) with T.C.A. § 27-8-102 (Supp. 1987) (statutory writ of certiorari available in certain instances).”
Clark v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville, 827 S.W.2d 312 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). “T.C.A. § 27-8-102 This Court is unaware of any occasion when the extraordinary writ of certiorari has been issued to review the granting of leave to amend a civil pleading in Circuit or Chancery Court; much less an occasion when a Circuit or Chancery Court issued the writ to…”
State v. Lane, 254 S.W.3d 349 (Tenn. 2008). “” See Tenn.Code Ann. § 27-8-102 (2000). The pertinent difference between these two writs is the scope of review used by courts.”
McCallen v. City of Memphis, 786 S.W.2d 633 (Tenn. 1990). “By contrast, statutory certiorari is set forth in Tenn.Code Ann. § 27-8-102. Review under the statutory writ is by trial de novo.”
Tennessee Waste Movers, Inc. v. Loudon Cnty., 160 S.W.3d 517 (Tenn. 2005). “TWM appealed to the chancery court pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated sections 27-8-102 (2000) (statutory writ of certiorari) and 68-211-704(c) (1996) (“the Jackson Law”).”
Jasper Engine & Transmission Exch. v. Mills, 911 S.W.2d 719 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). “Giving appellant the benefit of doubt, we will treat the petition as having been filed pursuant to T.C.A. § 27-8-102, the “statutory writ of certiorari” which provides in pertinent part as follows: 27-8-102 — Cases in which the writ lies.”
Gallatin Hous. Auth. v. Mahoganee Pelt, 532 S.W.3d 760 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017). “1984); Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-8-102 (2000). “[Ujnless the petitioner has been deprived of his appeal by.”
Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Dennis, 675 S.W.2d 489 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984). “Petitioners allege that they have a valid defense to the possessory action of the automobile, substantial misrepresentations were made to the petitioners and unwarranted additional charges awarded.”
Tucker v. Humphreys Cnty., 944 S.W.2d 613 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). “As above indicated, the Trial Judge considered that the “de novo review” provided by § 68-211-704(c) was the limited review allowed by T.C.A. § 27-8-102 which reads as follows: 27-8-102.”
Hailey v. Fowler, 849 S.W.2d 770 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992). “In count one of his complaint he asked for a writ of certiorari pursuant to T.C.A. § 27-8-102(3). He alleged he had been wrongfully and fraudulently deprived of his right to appeal this adverse personnel action to Defendant Council and that he is “entitled to a writ of…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-8-102(3) — 2 cases
Hailey v. Fowler, 849 S.W.2d 770 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992). “In count one of his complaint he asked for a writ of certiorari pursuant to T.C.A. § 27-8-102(3). He alleged he had been wrongfully and fraudulently deprived of his right to appeal this adverse personnel action to Defendant Council and that he is “entitled to a writ of…”
Brookside Homeowners Ass'n v. Stan Vaught (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015).
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.