George Metz v. Metropolitan Government Of Nashville And Davidson County, TN, 547 S.W.3d 221

The Metropolitan Nashville Planning Commission held meetings on March 24, April 14, and May 12, 2016 concerning the Forest View Park planned unit development (PUD); on May 12 the Commission determined the PUD was "active."
Petitioners (neighbors) filed a petition for writ of certiorari on May 16, 2016 challenging the Commission’s May 12 decision; the original petition and two subsequent amendments were not sworn/verified.
Petitioners filed a sworn proposed petition only on August 15, 2016, after Metro moved to dismiss on August 5.
The Trial Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction on August 30, 2016, concluding the petition failed to meet constitutional/statutory verification requirements and more than 60 days had elapsed since the final minutes were signed.
The Trial Court denied subsequent post-judgment relief (Rules 59.04 / 60.02) and found its August 30 order final and appealable; Petitioners appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the Commission’s actions were quasi‑judicial (so certiorari was the proper vehicle) and Petitioners’ failure to file a timely, sworn petition deprived the trial court of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Trial Court’s August 30, 2016 order was final and appealable	The dismissal only addressed May 12 decision and thus was not final; other Commission decisions remained unaddressed	The August 30 order was styled a "Final Order of Dismissal," disposed of the case, and left nothing for the trial court	Order was final and appealable; it resolved all claims between parties
Whether the petition should be treated as a declaratory judgment action instead of a petition for writ of certiorari	Commission allegedly made new law affecting Forest View Park, so the proper remedy is declaratory judgment	Commission applied existing law in quasi‑judicial determinations; certiorari is the appropriate remedy	Commission’s actions were quasi‑judicial; certiorari was the correct vehicle
Whether the trial court had subject‑matter jurisdiction given petition defects and timing	Petitioners argued their filings should be accepted / cured	Respondents argued the petitions were not verified as required and the 60‑day filing window expired; verification is constitutional and jurisdictional	Petitioners failed to timely file a sworn petition; verification requirement is jurisdictional; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction affirmed

Talley v. Board of Professional Responsibility, 358 S.W.3d 185 (Tenn. 2011) (oath/verification requirement for certiorari petitions is constitutional and jurisdictional)
McCallen v. City of Memphis, 786 S.W.2d 633 (Tenn. 1990) (distinguishing legislative versus quasi‑judicial administrative acts for remedy choice)
Fallin v. Knox County Board of Commissioners, 656 S.W.2d 338 (Tenn. 1983) (legislative administrative acts are challenged by declaratory judgment; quasi‑judicial acts by certiorari)
Davison v. Carr, 659 S.W.2d 361 (Tenn. 1983) (common‑law certiorari reviews judicial or quasi‑judicial administrative actions)
Bayberry Assocs. v. Jones, 783 S.W.2d 553 (Tenn. 1990) (appellate courts have jurisdiction only over final judgments unless rule/statute provides otherwise)
Blair v. Tenn. Bd. of Probation & Parole, 246 S.W.3d 38 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (trial court may extend the 60‑day certiorari filing period only if extension order entered within the 60‑day period)
Johnson v. Metropolitan Gov’t for Nashville & Davidson County, 54 S.W.3d 772 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (failure to file certiorari within 60 days precludes judicial review)