William Horton v. Dept. of Correction

Court of Appeals of Tennessee

William Horton v. Dept. of Correction

DecidedOctober 12, 1999

DocketM1999-02798-COA-R3-CV

StatusPublished

This text of William Horton v. Dept. of Correction (William Horton v. Dept. of Correction) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

William Horton v. Dept. of Correction, (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 12, 1999

WILLIAM H. HORTON v. TENNESSEE DEPT. OF CORRECTION, ET AL.

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 98-612-II Carol L. McCoy, Chancellor

No. M1999-02798-COA-R3-CV - Filed September 26, 2002

PATRICIA J. COTTRELL, J., concurring

I concur in the holding in this case, but write separately to point out that Mr. Horton failed to state a claim for relief because allegations the Department’s failure to follow procedural policies in a disciplinary proceeding are not sufficient to invoke the due process clause unless the resulting sanctions impose an atypical and significant hardship beyond the ordinary incidents of incarceration, and do not state a claim for relief under state law. Willis v. Tenn. Dep’t of Corr., No. 2000-01397- COA-R3-CV; 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 389 (March 13, 2001). However, I agree with the majority that failure to comply with the requirement of approval by the commissioner’s designee before imposition of sanctions is reviewable by common law writ of certiorari because such approval is a prerequisite for exercise of authority. Relief under the common law writ of certiorari is available if the lower tribunal has acted without authority or beyond its jurisdiction.

____________________________________ PATRICIA J. COTTRELL

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 12, 1999

WILLIAM H. HORTON v. TENNESSEE DEPT. OF CORRECTION, ET AL.

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 98-612-II Carol L. McCoy, Chancellor

No. M1999-02798-COA-R3-CV - Filed September 26, 2002

PATRICIA J. COTTRELL, J., concurring

I concur in the holding in this case, but write separately to point out that Mr. Horton failed to state a claim for relief because allegations the Department’s failure to follow procedural policies in a disciplinary proceeding are not sufficient to invoke the due process clause unless the resulting sanctions impose an atypical and significant hardship beyond the ordinary incidents of incarceration, and do not state a claim for relief under state law. Willis v. Tenn. Dep’t of Corr., No. 2000-01397- COA-R3-CV; 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 389 (March 13, 2001). However, I agree with the majority that failure to comply with the requirement of approval by the commissioner’s designee before imposition of sanctions is reviewable by common law writ of certiorari because such approval is a prerequisite for exercise of authority. Relief under the common law writ of certiorari is available if the lower tribunal has acted without authority or beyond its jurisdiction.

____________________________________ PATRICIA J. COTTRELL

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

William Horton v. Dept. of Correction, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-horton-v-dept-of-correction-tennctapp-1999.