Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-103 (2026)

Construction of chapter

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

Amended by 2016 Tenn. Acts, ch. 859,s 1, eff. 7/1/2016.

Acts 1974, ch. 725, § 19; 1975, ch. 370, § 15; 1978, ch. 938, §§ 14, 15; T.C.A., §§ 4-525, 4-5-119; Acts 1982, ch. 874, §§ 2, 25, 26.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: Bishop v. Conley, 894 S.W.2d 294 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994).
Bishop v. Conley, 894 S.W.2d 294 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). · cites it 8× “" Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-103 (a). The UAPA applies to all existing agencies and to all pending administrative proceedings unless they are expressly exempted.”
Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Morgan, 263 S.W.3d 827 (Tenn. 2008). · cites it 2× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-5-103(a) (stating that the Act should not be construed “in derogation of the common law”).”
Tidwell v. City of Memphis, 193 S.W.3d 555 (Tenn. 2006). · cites it 2× “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-5-103(a) (2005). Applying the foregoing to this case, we conclude that the City’s OJI Panel was acting as the functional equivalent of a civil service board by holding hearings, analyzing evidence, and determining appeals from administrative decisions to…”
Mid-South Indoor Horse Racing, Inc. v. Tennessee State Racing Comm'n, 798 S.W.2d 531 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 4× “The definitions and the rules of construction in Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-5-103 have also aided in deciding questions involving the appropriate standard for reviewing agency decisions.”
McClellan v. Bd. of Regents of the State Univ., 921 S.W.2d 684 (Tenn. 1996). · cites it 2× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-5-103(a) (1991 Repl.).”
Mosley v. Tennessee Dep't of Com. & Ins., 167 S.W.3d 308 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Tennessee Code Annotated section 4-5-103 (1998) provides, in pertinent part: (a) This chapter shall not be construed as in derogation of the common law, but as remedial legislation designed to clarify and bring uniformity to the procedure of state administrative agencies and…”
Schering-Plough Healthcare Prods., Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 999 S.W.2d 773 (Tenn. 1999). · cites it 2× “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-5-103 (1998 Repl.). The clear language of the statute confers upon certain chancery courts the jurisdictional power to consider petitions for review which are filed within sixty days after entry of the final agency order.”
Richardson v. Tennessee Assessment Appeals Comm'n, 828 S.W.2d 403 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “We further note that The Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, at T.C.A. § 4-5-103 provides in pertinent part as follows: 4-5-103.”
Gonsalves v. Roberts, 905 S.W.2d 931 (Tenn. 1995). · cites it 2× “It is designed to clarify and bring uniformity to the procedure of State administrative agencies and judicial review of their determination, T.C.A. § 4-5-103. Compliance with the procedures prescribed in Title 4, Chapter 5 does not obviate the necessity of complying with…”
Nw. Airlines, Inc. v. Tennessee State Bd. of Equalization, 861 S.W.2d 232 (Tenn. 1993). · cites it 2× “” T.C.A. § 4-5-103(b) and (e), which are part of the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, provide, in pertinent part, as follows: “(b) .”
Thomas Marlin Roberts v. Tennessee Dep't of Env't & Conservation (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 12× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-103 (a)(1). The statute also states that the UAPA “shall control” where a conflict arises between itself “and any statute, general or specific[,]” while specifically providing that “compliance with the procedures prescribed by this chapter does not…”
Erin R. Knight v. Tennessee State Bd. Of Educ. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “As an administrative agency,7 the Board has no inherent power and may only exercise such power that is conferred on it statutorily or constitutionally, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-103 (a)(2), or “by necessary implication from the expressed statutory grant of power,” Wyttenbach v.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-103(a) — 7 cases
Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Morgan, 263 S.W.3d 827 (Tenn. 2008). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-5-103(a) (stating that the Act should not be construed “in derogation of the common law”).”
Bishop v. Conley, 894 S.W.2d 294 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). “" Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-103 (a). The UAPA applies to all existing agencies and to all pending administrative proceedings unless they are expressly exempted.”
Tidwell v. City of Memphis, 193 S.W.3d 555 (Tenn. 2006). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-5-103(a) (2005). Applying the foregoing to this case, we conclude that the City’s OJI Panel was acting as the functional equivalent of a civil service board by holding hearings, analyzing evidence, and determining appeals from administrative decisions to…”
McClellan v. Bd. of Regents of the State Univ., 921 S.W.2d 684 (Tenn. 1996). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-5-103(a) (1991 Repl.).”
Mid-South Indoor Horse Racing, Inc. v. Tennessee State Racing Comm'n, 798 S.W.2d 531 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990). “The definitions and the rules of construction in Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-5-103 have also aided in deciding questions involving the appropriate standard for reviewing agency decisions.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-103(b) — 2 cases
Nw. Airlines, Inc. v. Tennessee State Bd. of Equalization, 861 S.W.2d 232 (Tenn. 1993). “” T.C.A. § 4-5-103(b) and (e), which are part of the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, provide, in pertinent part, as follows: “(b) .”
Thomas Marlin Roberts v. Tennessee Dep't of Env't & Conservation (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-103 (a)(1). The statute also states that the UAPA “shall control” where a conflict arises between itself “and any statute, general or specific[,]” while specifically providing that “compliance with the procedures prescribed by this chapter does not…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-103(c) — 1 case
Thomas Marlin Roberts v. Tennessee Dep't of Env't & Conservation (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-103 (a)(1). The statute also states that the UAPA “shall control” where a conflict arises between itself “and any statute, general or specific[,]” while specifically providing that “compliance with the procedures prescribed by this chapter does not…”
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.