contested case hearing in Tennessee

2019See Hughley, 208 S.W.3d at 394 (“[a] letter of denial, even if it contains the reasons for the summary refusal, cannot . . . equate to a final decision arising from a contested case hearing.”).

2019Hughley v. State, 208 S.W.3d 388, 395 (Tenn. 2006) (“Where an agency declines to convene a contested case hearing in response to a petition for declaratory order made pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 4-5-223 and issues only a letter of denial, a petitioner has ten years in which to file a suit for declaratory judgment pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 4-5-225.”).

2011Ogg v. Louisiana Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs, 602 So.2d 749, 752-53 (La.

2001Ogg v. Louisiana Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs, 602 So.2d 749, 752-53 (La.Ct.App.1992).

2012Lawrence v. Rawlins, No. M1997-00223- -5- COA-R3-CV, 2001 WL 76266 , at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2001); Dishmon, 15 S.W.3d at 481 ; Mid-South Indoor Horse Racing, Inc. v. Tenn. State Racing Comm’n, 798 S.W.2d 531, 538 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990).

1997More importantly, if a party has a right to a contested case hearing and is denied one, precluding judicial review of the denial would leave the party with no judicial redress of an obvious violation of the party’s right to a hearing.” In support of its contention that the UAPA is inapplicable, appellant relies upon Mid-South Indoor Horse Racing, Inc. v. Tennessee State Racing Comm’n, 798 S.W.2d 531 (Tenn.App.1990), which involved the issue of the UAPA’s applicability to the review of licensing proceedings in which the plaintiff was denied a license to conduct horse racing.

2017Tennessee Code Annotated section 4-5-322(b)(1)(A) provides that petitions for review “shall be filed within sixty (60) days after the entry of the agency’s final order thereon.” This time limit has been held to be jurisdictional, and “a court cannot review the merits of the case if it is filed outside the appropriate time period.” Lowdermilk v. Tenn. Dep’t of Safety, No. M2010-00417-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 4547256 , at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2010) (citing Bishop v. Tenn. Dep’t of Corr., 896 S.W.2d 557, 558 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994)).

2006Por instance, in Bishop v. Tenn. Dep’t of Corr., 896 S.W.2d 557 (Tenn.Ct.App.1994), the Court of Appeals considered a set of facts similar to that now before us.

2026Resp., 693 S.W.3d 225 , 253 (Tenn. 2024) (quoting Hodge v. Craig, 382 S.W.3d 325, 335 (Tenn. 2012)) (“‘[A]n issue may be deemed waived when it is argued in the brief but is not designated as an issue in accordance with [Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure] 27(a)(4).’”) And, the record on appeal does not include the administrative record from the initial contested case hearing.

2022Id. at 265 (internal citation omitted).

2014The Fitzpatricks argue that their indication for environmental neglect “was clearly not well- grounded in fact,” under subsection (a)(1), because “the evidence did not establish that the children had been exposed to any dangerous conditions.” The Fitzpatricks interpret the aforementioned statute as providing for an award of attorney’s fees for a citation not well- grounded in fact or law “even though [it is made] to the best of such agency’s knowledge, information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry.” In other words, the Fitzpatricks claim that the statute provides for a fee award to in

2013Willamette Indus., Inc. v. Tenn. Assessment Appeals Comm’n, 11 S.W.3d 142, 147 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (citing Wayne County v. Tenn. Solid Waste Disposal Control Bd., 756 S.W.2d 274, 279-80 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988)).

2013See Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-223 (a) (providing that upon petition for a declaratory order, the agency shall either convene a contested case hearing or refuse to issue a declaratory order); Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-106 (b) (2010) (stating that TDOC disciplinary proceedings shall not be considered “contested cases” under the UAPA); see also Rhoden v. State Dep’t of Corr., 984 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (“A prisoner disciplinary proceeding cannot be reviewed directly under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act because the Act removes such proceedings from the definition of a contested c

2013Willamette Indus., Inc. v. Tenn. Assessment Appeals Comm’n, 11 S.W.3d 142, 147 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (citing Wayne County v. Tenn. Solid Waste Disposal Control Bd., 756 S.W.2d 274, 279-80 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988)).

2012Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 40-28-116(a)(1), -118 (2006), 40-35-503(a); see also Shorts, 278 S.W.3d at 278 ("[Wjhether an inmate who becomes eligible for parole is actually released on parole is a decision entrusted to the sole discretion of the [Board], an entity independent of the TDOC.”). 17 .If an inmate petitions TDOC for a declaratory order, but TDOC fails to set the petition for a contested case hearing within sixty days after receiving it, TDOC "shall be deemed to have denied the petition and to have refused to issue a declaratory order.” Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-5-223(c). 18 .

2011See Davis v. Shelby County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 278 S.W.3d 256, 262 (Tenn. 2009) (finding that Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-9-114 (b)(1) governed the review of the Memphis Civil Service Merit Board even though the board was exempt from the UAPA’s contested case hearing procedures). -5- insubordination was supported by substantial and material evidence of cause.

2010See Armstrong v. Tenn. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 959 S.W.2d 595, 600 (Tenn.Ct.App.1997).

2008Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-102 (3) (defining contested case as including a declaratory proceeding); See McNeil v. Cooper, 241 S.W.3d 886, 900 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007); see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-322 (a) (providing that judicial review under the chapter on contested cases is the only available method of judicial review of a final agency decision in a contested case).

2007See, e.g., Arnwine v. Union County Bd. of Educ., 120 S.W.3d 804, 809 (Tenn.2003) (“[sjpecific statutory provisions control over conflicting general provisions”).