Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-312 (2026)

Appointment of arbitrator - Service as a neutral arbitrator

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Added by 2023 Tenn. Acts, ch. 319, s 1, eff. 7/1/2023.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc. v. William Hamilton Smythe, III, 401 S.W.3d 595 (Tenn. 2013).
Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc. v. William Hamilton Smythe, III, 401 S.W.3d 595 (Tenn. 2013). · cites it 9× “Smythe did not file a petition to confirm the award, as permitted by Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-5-312 (2012). However, on February 11, 2010, he filed a written response to Mor *601 gan Keegan’s petition in which he requested not only that the trial court deny Morgan Keegan’s petition,…”
Pugh's Lawn Landscape Co. v. Jaycon Dev. Corp., 320 S.W.3d 252 (Tenn. 2010). · cites it 9× “Pursuant to section 29-5-312, “the court shall confirm an award, unless, within the time limits hereinafter imposed, grounds are urged for vacating or modifying or correcting the award, in which case the court shall proceed as provided in §§ 29-5-313 and 29-5-314.”
D & E Constr. Co. v. Robert J. Denley Co., 38 S.W.3d 513 (Tenn. 2001). · cites it 6× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-312 (2000). 4 . This section requires a court to vacate an award where: (1) The award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means; (2) There was evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral or corruption in any of the arbitrators…”
Tuetken v. Tuetken, 320 S.W.3d 262 (Tenn. 2010). · cites it 3× “" Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-312 . Second, "the court shall vacate an award” when: (1) The award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means; (2) There was evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral or corruption in any of the arbitrators or misconduct…”
Arnold v. Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc., 914 S.W.2d 445 (Tenn. 1996). · cites it 2× “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-5-312. Section 29-5-313 provides that the trial court “shall” vacate an award under certain specifically enumerated circumstances.”
Rafia N. Khan, Individually, & In Her Capacity As Tr. Of The Rafia N. Khan Irrevocable Trust v. Regions Bank, 461 S.W.3d 505 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 5× “Upon application of a party to the arbitration to confirm the award, Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-5-312 requires the trial court to “confirm [the] award, unless, within the time limits hereinafter imposed, grounds are urged *510 for vacating or modifying or correcting the…”
Lasco Inc. v. Inman Constr. Corp., 467 S.W.3d 467 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “Upon application of a party to the arbitration to confirm the award, Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-5-312 requires the trial court to “confirm [the] award, unless, within the time limits hereinafter imposed, grounds are urged for vacating or modifying or correcting the…”
Williams Holding Co. v. Willis, 166 S.W.3d 707 (Tenn. 2005). “§ 29-5-312 (2000). 3 One such ground for vacating an award, which is urged by the defendant in this case, states that an arbitration award shall be vacated by the trial court where “[t]he arbitrators exceeded their authority.”
Est. of Guido v. Exempla, Inc., 292 P.3d 996 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). “Codified Laws §§ 21 -25A-23 to -25, 21-25A-28 (2011); Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 29-5-312 to -314 (2011); Tex.”
Berkeley Rsch. Grp., LLC v. S. Advanced Materials, LLC (Tenn. 2026). · cites it 6× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-312 (2012). However, Berkeley admitted during oral argument that the only authority in any jurisdiction interpreting this section to convey subject matter jurisdiction is the Court of Appeals in its decision below.”
Stellar-eMarketing, Inc. v. Kolat (M.D. Tenn. 2020). · cites it 2× “The Tennessee Uniform Arbitration Act (“TUAA”), includes mandatory language, “the court shall confirm an award, unless, within the time limits hereinafter imposed, grounds are urged for vacating or modifying or correcting an award …” Tenn.”
MidSouth Constr., LLC v. Daniel Burstiner (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “Burstiner’s appellate brief, he asserts that “The recent US Supreme Court decision regarding the 1984 Chevron decision . . . reverses that authority and gives the court the right to vacate an arbitration award with regards to findings of fact by the arbitrator.”
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.