Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-314 (2026)
Final order - Initial order
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) An agency with statutory authority to decide a contested case shall render a final order.
- (b) If an administrative judge or hearing officer hears a case alone under § 4-5-301(a)(2), the administrative judge or hearing officer shall render an initial order, which shall become a final order unless reviewed in accordance with § 4-5-315.
- (c) A final order, initial order or decision under § 50-7-304 shall include conclusions of law, the policy reasons therefor, and findings of fact for all aspects of the order, including the remedy prescribed and, if applicable, the action taken on a petition for stay of effectiveness. Findings of fact, if set forth in language that is no more than mere repetition or paraphrase of the relevant provision of law, shall be accompanied by a concise and explicit statement of the underlying facts of record to support the findings. The final order, initial order or decision must also include a statement of the available procedures and time limits for seeking reconsideration or other administrative relief and the time limits for seeking judicial review of the final order. An initial order or decision shall include a statement of any circumstances under which the initial order or decision may, without further notice, become a final order.
- (d) Findings of fact shall be based exclusively upon the evidence of record in the adjudicative proceeding and on matters officially noticed in that proceeding. The agency member's experience, technical competence and specialized knowledge may be utilized in the evaluation of evidence.
- (e) If an individual serving or designated to serve as an administrative judge, hearing officer or agency member becomes unavailable, for any reason, before rendition of the final order or initial order or decision, a substitute shall be appointed as provided in § 4-5-302. The substitute shall use any existing record and may conduct any further proceedings as is appropriate in the interest of justice.
- (f) The administrative judge or hearing officer may allow the parties a designated amount of time after conclusion of the hearing for the submission of proposed findings.
- (g) Unless the period is waived or extended with the written consent of all parties or for good cause shown, a final order rendered under subsection (a) or an initial order rendered under subsection (b) must be rendered in writing within ninety (90) days of:
- (1) The filing of the tape recording, stenographic notes or symbols, or transcript of the hearing, if requested on the record by the administrative judge or hearing officer, or the filing of the proposed findings in accordance with subsection (f). If both are filed, then the order must be rendered within ninety (90) days of the latter filing; or
- (2) The completion of the hearing, if neither of the filings in subdivision (g)(1) are requested by the administrative judge or hearing officer.
- (h) The agency shall cause copies of the final order under subsection (a) and the administrative judge or hearing officer shall cause copies of the initial order under subsection (b) to be delivered to each party.
Amended by 2022 Tenn. Acts, ch. 833, s 6, eff. 7/1/2022.
Acts 1982, ch. 874, § 54.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 58
cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: McEwen v. Tennessee Dep't of Saf., 173 S.W.3d 815 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).
McEwen v. Tennessee Dep't of Saf., 173 S.W.3d 815 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “Compliance with Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-5-314(a) is mandatory.”
Davis v. Tennessee Dep't of Emp. Sec., 23 S.W.3d 304 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-5-314(a) (1998). Second, the agency, board, or commission may decide to request an administrative law judge or hearing officer to conduct the hearing and then render an "initial order" that may, in turn, be affirmed or modified by the agency, board, or…”
Thomas Goodman Rutherford v. Melodey Joice Lawson Rutherford, 416 S.W.3d 845 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013). “at *3 (quoting Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-314 (g) (emphasis added)).”
MacOn v. Shelby Cnty. Gov't Civil Serv. Merit Bd., 309 S.W.3d 504 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “M2008-01567-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 1635087 , at *10 n. 9 (Tenn.Ct.App. June 10, 2009).”
Tennison Bros., Inc. v. William H. Thomas, Jr., 556 S.W.3d 697 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-314 (b). A petition for appeal from an initial order may be filed with the agency within fifteen days.”
Jackson Mobilphone Co. v. Tennessee Pub. Serv. Comm., 876 S.W.2d 106 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993). “Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 4-5-314(c), 65-2-111. Parties dissatisfied with the proposed or initial order may file exceptions requesting the commission to review the administrative judge’s order and to enter its own final order.”
Bobbitt v. Shell, 115 S.W.3d 506 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). “On June 30, 2000, Agriculture petitioned for agency review of the Initial Order pursuant to T.C.A. §§ 4-5-314 and 4-5-315. On May 21, 2001, the current Personnel Commissioner, Dorothy B.”
McClellan v. Bd. of Regents of the State Univ., 921 S.W.2d 684 (Tenn. 1996). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-5-314(b) (1991 Repl.).”
Garrett v. State, Dep't of Saf., 717 S.W.2d 290 (Tenn. 1986). “The basis of Garrett’s appeal was T.C.A., § 4-5-314(g) (1985) which states: “A final order rendered pursuant to subsection (a) or initial order rendered pursuant to subsection (b) shall be rendered in writing within ninety (90) days after conclusion of the hearing or after…”
Lien v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville, 117 S.W.3d 753 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). “An "initial order” is addressed at T.C.A. § 4-5-314 and the review of an "initial order” at T.”
Tennessee Env't Council, Inc. v. Tennessee Water Quality Control Bd., 254 S.W.3d 396 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-5-314. The significance of the proceedings in a contested case hearing and the need for able representation therein becomes even greater when a party seeks judicial review of the administrative proceedings and the rulings therein.”
Thomas v. State Bd. of Equalization, 940 S.W.2d 563 (Tenn. 1997). “This “Official Certificate of the Assessment Appeals Commission Relative to 1993 Property Assessments” included the following provisions: In accordance with the provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 67-6-1512 and Section 4-5-314, the Assessment Appeals Commission hereby…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-314(a) — 3 cases
McEwen v. Tennessee Dep't of Saf., 173 S.W.3d 815 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “Compliance with Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-5-314(a) is mandatory.”
Davis v. Tennessee Dep't of Emp. Sec., 23 S.W.3d 304 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-5-314(a) (1998). Second, the agency, board, or commission may decide to request an administrative law judge or hearing officer to conduct the hearing and then render an "initial order" that may, in turn, be affirmed or modified by the agency, board, or…”
De Lano Parker v. Shelby Cnty. Gov't Civil Serv. Merit Bd. & the Shelby Cnty. Sheriffs Dep't, 392 S.W.3d 603 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-314(b) — 4 cases
Davis v. Tennessee Dep't of Emp. Sec., 23 S.W.3d 304 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-5-314(a) (1998). Second, the agency, board, or commission may decide to request an administrative law judge or hearing officer to conduct the hearing and then render an "initial order" that may, in turn, be affirmed or modified by the agency, board, or…”
McEwen v. Tennessee Dep't of Saf., 173 S.W.3d 815 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “Compliance with Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-5-314(a) is mandatory.”
McClellan v. Bd. of Regents of the State Univ., 921 S.W.2d 684 (Tenn. 1996). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-5-314(b) (1991 Repl.).”
Elliott v. Univ. of Tennessee, 641 F. Supp. 24 (W.D. Tenn. 1984).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-314(c) — 18 cases
McEwen v. Tennessee Dep't of Saf., 173 S.W.3d 815 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “Compliance with Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-5-314(a) is mandatory.”
Jackson Mobilphone Co. v. Tennessee Pub. Serv. Comm., 876 S.W.2d 106 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993). “Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 4-5-314(c), 65-2-111. Parties dissatisfied with the proposed or initial order may file exceptions requesting the commission to review the administrative judge’s order and to enter its own final order.”
MacOn v. Shelby Cnty. Gov't Civil Serv. Merit Bd., 309 S.W.3d 504 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “M2008-01567-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 1635087 , at *10 n. 9 (Tenn.Ct.App. June 10, 2009).”
Mid-South Indoor Horse Racing, Inc. v. Tennessee State Racing Comm'n, 798 S.W.2d 531 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990).
Robert B. Elliott v. The Univ. of Tennessee, 766 F.2d 982 (6th Cir. 1985).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-314(d) — 3 cases
McEwen v. Tennessee Dep't of Saf., 173 S.W.3d 815 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “Compliance with Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-5-314(a) is mandatory.”
Lien v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville, 117 S.W.3d 753 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). “An "initial order” is addressed at T.C.A. § 4-5-314 and the review of an "initial order” at T.”
Clinton Lien v. Nashville & Davidson Cnty. (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-314(e) — 2 cases
MacOn v. Shelby Cnty. Gov't Civil Serv. Merit Bd., 309 S.W.3d 504 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “M2008-01567-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 1635087 , at *10 n. 9 (Tenn.Ct.App. June 10, 2009).”
Hughley v. State, 208 S.W.3d 388 (Tenn. 2006).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-314(g) — 7 cases
Thomas Goodman Rutherford v. Melodey Joice Lawson Rutherford, 416 S.W.3d 845 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013). “at *3 (quoting Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-314 (g) (emphasis added)).”
Garrett v. State, Dep't of Saf., 717 S.W.2d 290 (Tenn. 1986). “The basis of Garrett’s appeal was T.C.A., § 4-5-314(g) (1985) which states: “A final order rendered pursuant to subsection (a) or initial order rendered pursuant to subsection (b) shall be rendered in writing within ninety (90) days after conclusion of the hearing or after…”
R.R. Com'n of Texas v. Lone Star Gas Co., 656 S.W.2d 421 (Tex. 1983).
Daley v. Univ. of Tennessee at Memphis, 880 S.W.2d 693 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994).
Steven Yen v. Univ. of Tennessee Knoxville (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-314(g)(1985) — 1 case
Kardoush, LLC, d/b/a Caesar's Wine & Liquor v. City of Memphis Alcohol Comm'n (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).
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.