Stone v. Tenn. Bd. of Parole

6 Citing cases

  1. Taylor v. Tenn. Bd. of Parole

    1:24-CV-00015 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 15, 2024)

    Therefore, the only vehicle for obtaining limited judicial review of a parole board's decision to deny parole is a common law writ of certiorari. Stone v. Tenn. Bd. of Parole, No. M201601730COAR3CV, 2017 WL 4217164, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 20, 2017), perm. app. denied (Tenn. 2017). Common law writs of certiorari may be used “to remedy (1) fundamentally illegal rulings; (2) proceedings inconsistent with essential legal requirements; (3) proceedings that effectively deny a party his or her day in court; (4) decisions beyond the lower tribunal's authority; and (5) plain and palpable abuses of discretion.” Willis v. Tenn. Dep't of Corr., 113 S.W.3d 706, 712 (Tenn. 2003) (citing State v. Willoughby, 594 S.W.2d 388, 392 (Tenn. 1980)). The Tennessee Court of Appeals explained:

  2. Wortman v. Tenn. Bd. of Parole

    No. 3:20-cv-00156 (M.D. Tenn. May. 27, 2020)

    Therefore, the only vehicle for obtaining limited judicial review of a Parole Board's decision to deny parole is a common law writ of certiorari. Stone v. Tenn. Bd. of Parole, No. M201601730COAR3CV, 2017 WL 4217164, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 20, 2017), perm. app. denied (Tenn. 2017). A common law writ of certiorari is filed in state court, not here in federal court.

  3. Wortman v. Tenn. Bd. of Parole

    No. 3:20-cv-00156 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 3, 2020)   Cited 3 times

    Therefore, the only vehicle for obtaining limited judicial review of a Parole Board's decision to deny parole is a common law writ of certiorari. Stone v. Tenn. Bd. of Parole, No. M201601730COAR3CV, 2017 WL 4217164, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 20, 2017), perm. app. denied (Tenn. 2017). A common law writ of certiorari may be used "to remedy (1) fundamentally illegal rulings; (2) proceedings inconsistent with essential legal requirements; (3) proceedings that effectively deny a party his or her day in court; (4) decisions beyond the lower tribunal's authority; and (5) plain and palpable abuses of discretion."

  4. Boyd v. Staggs

    NO. 1:19-cv-00007 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 23, 2019)   Cited 4 times

    1960). Therefore, the only vehicle for obtaining limited judicial review of a Parole Board's decision to deny parole is a common law writ of certiorari. Stone v. Tenn. Bd. of Parole, No. M201601730COAR3CV, 2017 WL 4217164, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 20, 2017), perm. app. denied (Tenn. 2017).

  5. Whipple v. Tenn. Bd. of Paroles

    No. 1:17-CV-148-RLJ-SKL (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 19, 2018)   Cited 12 times
    Dismissing plaintiff's claim in his amended Section 1983 complaint for an application for a writ of certiorari seeking judicial review of the parole board's decision to deny him parole

    1960). The only vehicle for obtaining limited judicial review of the Board's decision is a common law writ of certiorari. Stone v. Tenn. Bd. of Parole, No. M201601730COAR3CV, 2017 WL 4217164, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 20, 2017), perm. app. denied (Tenn. 2017).

  6. Huffstutter v. Metro. Historical Zoning Comm'n of the Metro. Gov't of Nashville

    No. M2022-00850-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jul. 3, 2023)

    Adam Huffstutter has not shown that the result would have been any different under the common law writ of certiorari review that he sought in chancery court. See, e.g., Stone v. Tenn. Bd. of Parole, No. M2016-01730-COA-R3-CV, 2017 WL 4217164, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 20, 2017) ("In common law certiorari proceedings, we are obliged to give substantial deference to the agency's interpretation of its own rules."); Steppach v. Thomas, 346 S.W.3d 488, 499 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) ("we will defer to the agency's decision on questions involving its own procedures").