TCA § 65-4-121 — Appeals

Any appeal, order, decision, ruling or action of the commission affecting any utility as defined in § 65-4-101 , exclusive of railroads or common carriers, or any company engaged in the transmission of intelligence or communications, shall be filed in a court of record of competent jurisdiction in the county in which the dispute or matters in controversy arose; and no other nisi prius court of this state shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine such appeal. In the event of an appeal from the judgment or order of circuit or chancery court reviewing such order, or judgment, such appeal shall be prosecuted to the court of appeals in the grand division of the state in which the dispute or matters in controversy arose; and any appeal therefrom shall be perfected to the supreme court. Acts 1935, ch. 46, § 1; C. Supp. 1950, § 5470.1; impl. am. Acts 1955, ch. 69, § 1; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 65-437; Acts 1993, ch. 23, § 1; T.C.A., § 65-4-120 ; Acts 1995, ch. 305, § 20; 2017, ch. 94, § 51. Amendments. The 2017 amendment substituted “commission” for “authority” preceding “affecting any utility” at the beginning of the section. Cross-References. Grand divisions, title 4, ch. 1, part 2. Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 21 Tenn. Juris., Public Service Commissions, §§ 3, 5. Law Reviews. Tennessee Appellate Procedure and the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (William J. Harbison), 6 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 291 (1976). NOTES TO DECISIONS 1. Constitutionality. 2. Legislative Purpose. 3. Jurisdiction. 4. Review. 5. Presumption of Validity of Order. 1. Constitutionality. In a bill complaining of an order of the commission (now authority) reducing electricity rates, a utility company subject to the provisions of this section could not complain such provisions were unconstitutional where its benefits were equally available to the utility company and the commission (now authority). Kentucky-Tennessee Light & Power Co. v. Dunlap, 181 Tenn. 105, 178 S.W.2d 636, 1944 Tenn. LEXIS 349 (1944). The classification of this section as to the applicability of its provisions for review is not arbitrary or unreasonable. Kentucky-Tennessee Light & Power Co. v. Dunlap, 181 Tenn. 105, 178 S.W.2d 636, 1944 Tenn. LEXIS 349 (1944). 2. Legislative Purpose. Under this section it was the intention of the general assembly to have every phase of any dispute disposed of by nisi prius courts in the county where the utility's operation is made subject to an order by the commission (now authority). Kentucky-Tennessee Light & Power Co. v. Dunlap, 181 Tenn. 105, 178 S.W.2d 636, 1944 Tenn. LEXIS 349 (1944). 3. Jurisdiction. The utility involved may as a matter of right invoke the jurisdiction of a chancery or circuit court to have a hearing de novo as to any and all orders and acts of the commission (now authority), and its rights in this regard are not dependent upon the granting by the trial court of the writ of certiorari. Kentucky-Tennessee Light & Power Co. v. Dunlap, 181 Tenn. 105, 178 S.W.2d 636, 1944 Tenn. LEXIS 349 (1944). An appeal attacking the validity of an order of the commission (now authority) in reducing the electricity rates in a certain city which was brought on grounds that the commission (now authority) had not given the required notice of the hearing could not be brought in the chancery court of Davidson county where the dispute or matters in controversy did not arise in such county. Kentucky-Tennessee Light & Power Co. v. Dunlap, 181 Tenn. 105, 178 S.W.2d 636, 1944 Tenn. LEXIS 349 (1944). Where a suit by a utility to review an order by the commission (now authority) reducing electricity rates in a certain city was commenced in the chancery court of the wrong county the commission (now authority) did not waive the question of jurisdiction by appearing and filing an answer. Kentucky-Tennessee Light & Power Co. v. Dunlap, 181 Tenn. 105, 178 S.W.2d 636, 1944 Tenn. LEXIS 349 (1944). Where order of the commission (now authority) in reducing electricity rates in a certain city and also the preliminary steps necessary to the making of the rates fell within the provisions of this section as amounting to an order, decision or ruling affecting certain utility companies, an appeal from either the order of the commission (now authority) or from the action of the commission (now authority) in reference to the preliminary steps was required to be filed in a nisi prius court of the county in which the suit arose. Kentucky-Tennessee Light & Power Co. v. Dunlap, 181 Tenn. 105, 178 S.W.2d 636, 1944 Tenn. LEXIS 349 (1944). 4. Review. Under this section the right to a review of the judgment and decree of the trial court is not confined to the limits of a petition for certiorari. Kentucky-Tennessee Light & Power Co. v. Dunlap, 181 Tenn. 105, 178 S.W.2d 636, 1944 Tenn. LEXIS 349 (1944). The term “appeal” as used in the title of Acts 1939 clearly indicated the right to take the case to a nisi prius court and then to an appellate court to review, i.e., to the court of appeals and then to the supreme court, and the contention that such provisions rendered the act unconstitutional as being broader than its caption was without merit. Kentucky-Tennessee Light & Power Co. v. Dunlap, 181 Tenn. 105, 178 S.W.2d 636, 1944 Tenn. LEXIS 349 (1944). 5. Presumption of Validity of Order. Every order, ruling and decision of the commission (now authority) is presumed to be lawful and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary must be upheld. Kentucky-Tennessee Light & Power Co. v. Dunlap, 181 Tenn. 105, 178 S.W.2d 636, 1944 Tenn. LEXIS 349 (1944).