Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-6-102 (2026)
Penitentiaries for adults - Management by department of correction
✓ current as of May 2026
The management and government of the state penitentiaries for adults are vested in the department of correction. It has all the power necessary for the full and efficient exercise of the executive, administrative, and fiscal supervision over all such institutions, except as otherwise expressly provided.
Acts 1919, ch. 39, § 2; impl. am. Acts 1921, ch. 4, § 1; impl. am. Acts 1923, ch. 7, § 42; Shan. Supp., § 312b; 2; mod. Code 1932, § 371; impl. am. Acts 1935, ch. 186, § 1; C. Supp. 1950, § 371; impl. am. Acts 1953, ch. 27, § 1; impl. am. Acts 1955, ch. 102, § 1; modified; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 4-602; Acts 1989, ch. 278, § 22.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1998–2006 · leading case: Martin v. Sizemore, 78 S.W.3d 249 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).
Martin v. Sizemore, 78 S.W.3d 249 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “§§ 4-6-102(3), -312 (1998) provide for contested case proceedings in which the parties have an opportunity to respond to the charges against them, to present evidence and argument, to conduct cross-examination, and to submit rebuttal evidence.”
Mandela v. Campbell, 978 S.W.2d 531 (Tenn. 1998). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-6-102 (stating, “The management and government of the state penitentiaries for adults are vested in the department of correction.”
Peggy Boles v. Dept. of Corr. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-6-102 . . . This broad grant of legislative discretion necessarily includes the power to establish policies and procedures for handling disciplinary matters.”
Sherman Alexander Henderson v. Ross Bates (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “See T.C.A. §4-6-102 (2005). Mr. Henderson asserts that he was moved “to a more secure housing unit.”
Calvin Tankesly v. Sgt. Pugh (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-6-102 . This broad grant of legislative discretion necessarily includes the power to establish policies and procedures for handling disciplinary matters.”
El-Shabazz Ahkeen v. Donal Campbell (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “The Department of Correction is vested with the management and government of state prisons, Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-6-102 , and in describing this grant of authority, our Supreme Court has stated: -6- The legislature has provided the TDOC considerable deference and broad…”
Alexander Baxter v. Dept. of Corr. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “See also Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-6-102 (“The management and government of the state penitentiaries for adults are vested in the department of correction.”
John Seals v. James Bowlen, Warden (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). “6 It is true that the Department of Correction is vested with the management and government of state prisons, Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-6-102 , and in describing this grant of authority, our Supreme Court has stated: The legislature has provided the TDOC considerable deference and…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-6-102(3) — 1 case
Martin v. Sizemore, 78 S.W.3d 249 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “§§ 4-6-102(3), -312 (1998) provide for contested case proceedings in which the parties have an opportunity to respond to the charges against them, to present evidence and argument, to conduct cross-examination, and to submit rebuttal evidence.”
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.