The writ may be granted by any judge of the circuit or criminal courts, or by any chancellor in cases of equitable cognizance.
Code 1858, § 3723; Shan., § 5503; mod. Code 1932, § 9674; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1803.
Notes of Decisions
Lewis v. Metro. Gen. Sessions Court for Nashville, 949 S.W.2d 696 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “If, however, a petitioner attempts to set aside a conviction because of the abridgement of a constitutional right, the statutory post-conviction procedure is the single means of relief.”
David H. Johnson v. Steve Upton, Warden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “T.C.A. §29-21-103. As such, the habeas court was not required to make findings of fact pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 52.”
Michael Gibbs, Jr. v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 29-21-103 (2000) (conferring original habeas corpus jurisdiction on circuit, criminal, or chancery courts).”
Jessie Hodges v. Ricky J. Bell, Warden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “” T.C.A. § 29-21-103 (emphasis added). In the context of its discussion of the concurrent jurisdiction of the circuit and chancery courts, the treatise Gibson’s Suits in Chancery addresses this limitation on the authority of the chancery court: “Chancery Court has no…”
LeCroy-Schemel v. John Cupp, Sheriff (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “” T.C.A. § 29-21-103 (emphasis added). The legislature finds such improper detention to be so egregious as to require immediate judicial action upon proper application supported by evidence.”
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.