Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 65-2-111 (2026)

Proceedings before hearing examiners

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In any contested case, the commission may direct that the proceedings or any part thereof shall be heard by a hearing examiner to be appointed by the commission; provided, that only the members of the commission and the regular employees of the commission shall be eligible to serve as such examiners. Proceedings before hearing examiners shall be according to this chapter, other applicable laws and the rules of the commission. Whenever a contested case, or any part thereof, is heard by a hearing examiner, the hearing examiner shall make a proposal for decision in writing which shall include findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the hearing examiner. Such proposals for decisions shall be served on all parties of record, and each party who would be adversely affected by the proposed decision shall be given an opportunity to file exceptions and present argument in writing to the commission itself. Before the commission shall enter a final order in such cases, the members thereof shall personally consider the entire record, or such portion thereof as may be cited by the parties, and shall make its decision in the form and manner prescribed by this chapter for decisions in contested cases.

Acts 1953, ch. 162, § 11 (Williams, § 5501.34); T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 65-211; Acts 1995, ch. 305, § 9.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1993–1998 · leading case: Jackson Mobilphone Co. v. Tennessee Pub. Serv. Comm., 876 S.W.2d 106 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jackson Mobilphone Co. v. Tennessee Pub. Serv. Comm., 876 S.W.2d 106 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “§ 4-5-301(a)(2) (1991); Tenn.Code Ann. § 65-2-111 (1993). An administrative judge who hears a contested case without the commission present must prepare a proposed or initial order containing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the policy reasons for the decision.”

Consum. Advocate Div. v. Tennessee Regulatory Auth. Nashville Gas Co. (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 65-2-101 , et seq. Tenn.”

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.