Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-105 (2026)

New action after adverse decision - Contractual limitations periods

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) If the action is commenced within the time limited by a rule or statute of limitation, but the judgment or decree is rendered against the plaintiff upon any ground not concluding the plaintiff's right of action, or where the judgment or decree is rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and is arrested, or reversed on appeal, the plaintiff, or the plaintiff's representatives and privies, as the case may be, may, from time to time, commence a new action within one (1) year after the reversal or arrest. Actions originally commenced in general sessions court and subsequently recommenced pursuant to this section in circuit or chancery court shall not be subject to the monetary jurisdictional limit originally imposed in the general sessions court.

(b) In the case of a contract which limits the time within which an action arising out of such contract must be brought, if such action is commenced within the time as limited by the contract but the judgment or decree is rendered against the plaintiff upon any ground not concluding the plaintiff's right of action, or where the judgment or decree is rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and is arrested, or reversed on appeal, the plaintiff, or the plaintiff's representatives or successors, as the case may be, may, from time to time, commence a new action within one (1) year after the nonsuit, dismissal without prejudice, reversal or arrest.

Code 1858, § 2755 (deriv. Acts 1715, ch. 27, § 6; 1819, ch. 28, § 3); Shan., § 4446; mod. Code 1932, § 8572; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 28-106; Acts 1985, ch. 344, § 1; 1989, ch. 225, § 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 258 cases (29 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Michael Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., d/b/a Beaman Dodge Chrysler Jeep, 356 S.W.3d 889 (Tenn. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Michael Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., d/b/a Beaman Dodge Chrysler Jeep, 356 S.W.3d 889 (Tenn. 2011). · cites it 18× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-105 (a). The Defendant contends that this suit, filed more than one year after the order granting the voluntary nonsuit, is barred by the one-year period of limitation.”

Brown v. State, 783 S.W.2d 567 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 43× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-105 is intended to save otherwise valid claims from the statute of limitations.”

Circle C. Constr., LLC v. D. Sean Nilsen, 484 S.W.3d 914 (Tenn. 2016). · cites it 17× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-105 (a). The savings statute facilitates the disposition of cases on the merits.”

Frazier v. East Tennessee Baptist Hosp., Inc., 55 S.W.3d 925 (Tenn. 2001). · cites it 14× “East Tennessee Baptist Hospital later filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the period of limitation for re-filing under Tenn.Code Ann. § 28-1-105 had expired on August 7, 1999.”

Evans v. Perkey, 647 S.W.2d 636 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 15× “They also alleged the suit was brought more than one year after the taking of the nonsuit and does not come within the savings statute of T.C.A. § 28-1-105. Dr. Evans, in his motion, also said Mr.”

Morford v. Yong Kyun Cho, 732 S.W.2d 617 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 20× “The issue in this case involves the application of Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-105 , the Savings Statute.”

Bobby J. Byrge v. Parkwest Med. Ctr., 442 S.W.3d 245 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 17× “Plaintiff appeals to this Court asserting that his suit was not barred as he was entitled to rely upon Tenn.Code Ann. § 28-1-105, the saving statute.”

Goss v. Hutchins, 751 S.W.2d 821 (Tenn. 1988). · cites it 12× “The judge then held that the statute of limitations did not bar plaintiff's action due to the operation of the saving statute, T.C.A. § 28-1-105. A trial was then held and the jury awarded plaintiff damages for her injuries in the amount of $45,000.”

Farmer v. Tennessee Dep't of Saf., 228 S.W.3d 96 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 17× “Plaintiff argued his PPA lawsuit was “saved” by application of the saving statutes, Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 28-1-105 and/or 28-1-115.”

Lynn v. City of Jackson, 63 S.W.3d 332 (Tenn. 2001). · cites it 6× “2d 453 (1938) (discussing a predecessor savings statute identical to Tenn.Code Ann. § 28-1-105); Nance v. City of Knoxville, 883 S.”

Gore v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., 132 S.W.3d 369 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 5× “Petitioner claims that his suit filed in federal court and subsequently dismissed on grounds not adjudicating the merits of the claim is sufficient to toll the sixty day statute of limitations provided by T.”

McGee v. Jacobs, 236 S.W.3d 162 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 10× “McGee’s action for failure to re-file within one year of that court’s order of voluntary dismissal under Tennessee Code Annotated § 28-1-105. The facts relevant to this procedural issue are undisputed.”

Show all 258 citing cases →

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-105(1) — 1 case

Melissa Martin v. Rolling Hills Hosp., LLC (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-105(2000) — 1 case

Patrick McGee v. Tommy Jacobs, Jacobs, Cohen & McCormick, PLLC CPAS (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-105(a) — 50 cases

Abshure v. Methodist Healthcare-Memphis Hospitals, 325 S.W.3d 98 (Tenn. 2010).

Michael Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., d/b/a Beaman Dodge Chrysler Jeep, 356 S.W.3d 889 (Tenn. 2011). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-105 (a). The Defendant contends that this suit, filed more than one year after the order granting the voluntary nonsuit, is barred by the one-year period of limitation.”

Penley v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., 31 S.W.3d 181 (Tenn. 2000).

Cronin v. Howe, 906 S.W.2d 910 (Tenn. 1995).

Dye v. Witco Corp., 216 S.W.3d 317 (Tenn. 2007).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-105(a)(2000) — 2 cases

McGee v. Jacobs, 236 S.W.3d 162 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “McGee’s action for failure to re-file within one year of that court’s order of voluntary dismissal under Tennessee Code Annotated § 28-1-105. The facts relevant to this procedural issue are undisputed.”

Patrick McGee v. Tommy Jacobs, Jacobs, Cohen & McCormick, PLLC CPAS (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-105(b) — 2 cases

Circle C. Constr., LLC v. D. Sean Nilsen, 484 S.W.3d 914 (Tenn. 2016). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-105 (a). The savings statute facilitates the disposition of cases on the merits.”

Circle C Constr., LLC v. D. Sean Nilsen (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014).

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.