Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-315 (2026)

Review of initial order

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

Acts 1982, ch. 874, § 55; 2000, ch. 594, §§ 1, 2.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · 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). · cites it 7× “§ 4-5-315(a). However, if the agency reviewed an initial order, either at the request of a party or on its own motion, the agency itself was required to prepare and file its own final order.”
Jackson Mobilphone Co. v. Tennessee Pub. Serv. Comm., 876 S.W.2d 106 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 4-5-315(a), 65-2-111. The commission is not simply acting as an error-correcting body when it reviews a proposed or initial order.”
Tennison Bros., Inc. v. William H. Thomas, Jr., 556 S.W.3d 697 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-314 (b). A petition for appeal from an initial order may be filed with the agency within fifteen days.”
Jones v. Bureau of TennCare, 94 S.W.3d 495 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “*500 Thereafter, pursuant to the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-5-315, Jones appealed the Initial Order.”
Lien v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville, 117 S.W.3d 753 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 6× “§ 4-5-314 and the review of an "initial order” at T.C.A. § 4-5-315. 4 . The record showed discipline for two (2) traffic violations and a failure to appear in court.”
The Commissioners of the Powell-Clinch Util. Dist. v. Util. Mgmt. Review Bd., 427 S.W.3d 375 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “It also asserts that, after the Comptroller has submitted a report, the UMRB must examine it to determine whether a basis exists upon which to initiate a contested case proceeding; that any hearing must be conducted by the UMRB or an administrative law judge; that the matter is…”
Mosley v. Tennessee Dep't of Com. & Ins., 167 S.W.3d 308 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “No application, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 4-5-315, for a review of the initial Order by the agency was filed, and, by Order of April 2, 2002, the initial Order became the Final Order pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 4-5-318(0(3).”
Grubb v. Tennessee Civil Serv. Comm'n, 731 S.W.2d 919 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to T.C.A. § 4-5-315 both parties duly appealed to the Civil Service Commission.”
Robert B. Elliott v. The Univ. of Tennessee, 766 F.2d 982 (6th Cir. 1985). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-5-315(a). Judicial review of the final agency decision may be had by filing a petition for review in the state chancery court within sixty days of entry of the agency’s order.”
Christina K. Collins v. Tennessee Dep't of Health (2023). · cites it 10× “Collins first noted that the Department was a “superior adjudicative agency to the Board,” as determined by the Davidson County Court, and therefore the Department maintained the authority to review the orders of the Board pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-315 . She further…”
Jeremy R. Durham v. Tennessee Registry of Election Fin. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 8× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-315 (b). As such, Mr.”
Teresa McEwen v. Dept. of Saf. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 12× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-315 (a)(2)(C) (Supp.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-315(a) — 4 cases
Jackson Mobilphone Co. v. Tennessee Pub. Serv. Comm., 876 S.W.2d 106 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993). “Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 4-5-315(a), 65-2-111. The commission is not simply acting as an error-correcting body when it reviews a proposed or initial order.”
McEwen v. Tennessee Dep't of Saf., 173 S.W.3d 815 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “§ 4-5-315(a). However, if the agency reviewed an initial order, either at the request of a party or on its own motion, the agency itself was required to prepare and file its own final order.”
Robert B. Elliott v. The Univ. of Tennessee, 766 F.2d 982 (6th Cir. 1985). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-5-315(a). Judicial review of the final agency decision may be had by filing a petition for review in the state chancery court within sixty days of entry of the agency’s order.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-315(a)(2)(C) — 1 case
McEwen v. Tennessee Dep't of Saf., 173 S.W.3d 815 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “§ 4-5-315(a). However, if the agency reviewed an initial order, either at the request of a party or on its own motion, the agency itself was required to prepare and file its own final order.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-315(b) — 2 cases
Lien v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville, 117 S.W.3d 753 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). “§ 4-5-314 and the review of an "initial order” at T.C.A. § 4-5-315. 4 . The record showed discipline for two (2) traffic violations and a failure to appear in court.”
Jeremy R. Durham v. Tennessee Registry of Election Fin. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-315 (b). As such, Mr.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-315(d) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-315(e) — 1 case
McEwen v. Tennessee Dep't of Saf., 173 S.W.3d 815 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “§ 4-5-315(a). However, if the agency reviewed an initial order, either at the request of a party or on its own motion, the agency itself was required to prepare and file its own final order.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-315(f) — 1 case
McEwen v. Tennessee Dep't of Saf., 173 S.W.3d 815 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “§ 4-5-315(a). However, if the agency reviewed an initial order, either at the request of a party or on its own motion, the agency itself was required to prepare and file its own final order.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-315(i) — 2 cases
Jackson Mobilphone Co. v. Tennessee Pub. Serv. Comm., 876 S.W.2d 106 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993). “Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 4-5-315(a), 65-2-111. The commission is not simply acting as an error-correcting body when it reviews a proposed or initial order.”
Lien v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville, 117 S.W.3d 753 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). “§ 4-5-314 and the review of an "initial order” at T.C.A. § 4-5-315. 4 . The record showed discipline for two (2) traffic violations and a failure to appear in court.”
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.