Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-314 (2026)
Action by majority
✓ current as of May 2026
If there is more than one (1) arbitrator, then the powers of an arbitrator must be exercised by a majority of the arbitrators, and all of them must conduct the hearing under § 29-5-316(c).
Added by 2023 Tenn. Acts, ch. 319, s 1, eff. 7/1/2023.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases, 1996–2015 · leading case: D & E Constr. Co. v. Robert J. Denley Co., 38 S.W.3d 513 (Tenn. 2001).
D & E Constr. Co. v. Robert J. Denley Co., 38 S.W.3d 513 (Tenn. 2001). “In the alternative, a trial court can modify or correct the award when “[t]he arbitrators have awarded upon a matter not submitted to them and the award may be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the issues submitted.”
Arnold v. Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc., 914 S.W.2d 445 (Tenn. 1996). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-5-314 provides for modification or correction of an award where: (1) There was an evident miscalculation of figures or an evident mistake in the description of any person, thing or property referred to in the award; (2) The arbitrators have awarded upon a…”
Team Design v. Gottlieb, 104 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “, Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-5-314, and they may vacate an award only on the basis of fraud, corruption, or other misconduct by the person or persons who made the decision.”
Tuetken v. Tuetken, 320 S.W.3d 262 (Tenn. 2010). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-5-314. 7 . The Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 152(1) provides that [w]here a mistake of both parties at the time a contract was made as to a basic assumption on which the contract was made has a material effect on the agreed exchange of performances, the…”
Pugh's Lawn Landscape Co. v. Jaycon Dev. Corp., 320 S.W.3d 252 (Tenn. 2010). “Section 29-5-314 provides that "the court shall modify or correct the award” if an application is "made within ninety (90) days after delivery of a copy of the award to the applicant,” and (1) There was an evident miscalculation of figures or an evident mistake in the…”
Williams Holding Co. v. Willis, 166 S.W.3d 707 (Tenn. 2005). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-5-313 (2000) (grounds for vacating arbitration award); Tenn.”
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). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-5-313(a)(3). In the alternative, a trial court can modify or correct the award when “[t]he arbitrators have awarded upon a matter not submitted to them and the award may be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the issues submitted.”
Lasco Inc. v. Inman Constr. Corp., 467 S.W.3d 467 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). “In the alternative, a trial court can modify or correct the award when “[t]he arbitrators have awarded upon a matter not submitted to them and the award may be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the issues submitted.”
Chattanooga Area Reg'l Transp. Auth. v. Local 1212 Amalgamated Transit Union, 206 S.W.3d 448 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “In the alternative, it alleged that the award was on a matter not subject to arbitration, and this rendered *450 the award modifiable pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-314 (a)(2). After the Union answered, CARTA filed a Motion to Vacate or Modify Arbitration Award, asserting…”
Millsaps v. Robertson-Vaughn Constr. Co., 970 S.W.2d 477 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). “In this ease the contractor did not ask the court to modify or correct the award, and to this date, has not asserted that any of the statutory reasons for modification or correction exist.”
In Re Gunther, 431 B.R. 307 (6th Cir. BAP 2009). “The Chancery Court denied the request to increase the Award citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-314 , part of the Uniform Arbitration Act as adopted in Tennessee.”
Michael J. Hogan v. Janet Katherine Hogan (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-314 (a) (2000). Because Father relied upon none of the bases for modification or vacation of the award, Mother claims that Father’s appeal must be denied.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-314(b) — 2 cases
Williams Holding Co. D/B/A Raleigh Hills Apts. v. Sharon T. Willis (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
Howell v. City of Lenoir (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).
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.