Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 17-4-101 (2026)

Appointment by governor - Length of term - Vacancy - Confirmation

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Amended by 2016 Tenn. Acts, ch. 528,s 9, eff. 1/28/2016.

Acts 2009, ch. 517, § 1.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Bredesen v. Tennessee Jud. Selection Comm'n, 214 S.W.3d 419 (Tenn. 2007).
Bredesen v. Tennessee Jud. Selection Comm'n, 214 S.W.3d 419 (Tenn. 2007). · cites it 7× “The issues in this case involve the proper interpretation of sections 17-4-101 to 17-4-118 of the Tennessee Code Annotated (“the Tennessee Plan”) and matters of constitutional law.”
John Jay Hooker v. Governor Bill Haslam, 437 S.W.3d 409 (Tenn. 2014). · cites it 5× “We granted permission to appeal to determine whether certain provisions of the Tennessee Plan, Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 17-4-101 through 17-4-109 (2009), which governs the way in which Tennessee appellate judges are initially selected and thereafter stand for reelection, violate the…”
Holder v. Tennessee Jud. Selection Comm'n, 937 S.W.2d 877 (Tenn. 1996). · cites it 4× “The election proceeded on August 1, 1996, as a retention election under the Tennessee Plan, Tenn.Code Ann. § 17-4-101, et seq. A majority of those casting ballots voted against retaining Justice White as a justice of the Supreme Court, and her term expired on August 31, 1996,…”
State Ex Rel. Hooker v. Thompson, 249 S.W.3d 331 (Tenn. 1996). · cites it 8× “Thompson informed appellants that pursuant to T.C.A. § 17-4-101, et seq. (popularly known as the “Tennessee Plan”), Justice Penny J.”
Hooker v. Haslam, 393 S.W.3d 156 (Tenn. 2012). · cites it 2× “Bivins, challenging the gubernatorial appointment of Judge Bivins to the Court of Criminal Appeals under Tennessee Code Annotated sections 17-4-101 through 17-4-119 (2009) (the “Tennessee Plan”) and asserting that the impending August 2, 2012 retention election violates article…”
Moncier v. Haslam, 1 F. Supp. 3d 854 (E.D. Tenn. 2014). · cites it 3× “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 17-4-101 et seq.; see also State of Tennessee Executive Order No.”
John Jay Hooker, on behalf of himself & others v. Governor Bill Haslam, 382 S.W.3d 358 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 18× “1 Plaintiff filed this action in Circuit Court challenging the constitutionality of the Tennessee Retention Election Statutes, Tenn.Code Ann. § 17-4-101 et seq. The Trial Judge held the statutes were constitutional, but concluded that intermediate appellate judges are subject to…”
Lillard v. Burson, 933 F. Supp. 698 (W.D. Tenn. 1996). · cites it 2× “The complaint alleges that at the time of plaintiffs’ appointment as judge, the process and procedures for the selection of appellate judges in the State of Tennessee were controlled by Tenn.Code Ann. § 17-4-101, et. seq., a newly established statutory scheme of judicial…”
John Jay Hooker v. Governor Bill Haslam (Tenn. 2014). · cites it 5× “M2012-01299-SC-R11-CV – Filed March 17, 2014 We granted permission to appeal to determine whether certain provisions of the Tennessee Plan, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 17-4-101 through 17-4-109 (2009), which governs the way in which Tennessee appellate judges are initially selected and…”
Sherrie L. Durham v. Bill Haslam (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “The Tennessee Plan is codified at Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 17-4-101 et seq. Those statutes established the method for the selection and election of appellate court judges in Tennessee, as described in more detail in Hooker v.”
Hochhalter (M.D. Tenn. 2026). “at 1–2), the Complaint asks the court to (1) declare that “the Constitution of Tennessee, article 6 § 3&4 and the Tennessee Plan, as codified in Tennessee Code Annotation §17-4-101 et seq.,” deprives many Tennessee citizens of a fair trial, and (2) “award[] judgment against the…”
State of Tennessee, ex rel., John Jay Hooker v. Brook Thompson, State of Tennessee Lewis Laska v. Brook Thompson (Tenn. 1996). · cites it 2× “Section 17-4-101 et seq. does not violate the Tennessee Constitution.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 17-4-101(a) — 2 cases
Bredesen v. Tennessee Jud. Selection Comm'n, 214 S.W.3d 419 (Tenn. 2007). “The issues in this case involve the proper interpretation of sections 17-4-101 to 17-4-118 of the Tennessee Code Annotated (“the Tennessee Plan”) and matters of constitutional law.”
State Ex Rel. Hooker v. Thompson, 249 S.W.3d 331 (Tenn. 1996). “Thompson informed appellants that pursuant to T.C.A. § 17-4-101, et seq. (popularly known as the “Tennessee Plan”), Justice Penny J.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.