Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-28-103 (2026)

Board of parole

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

Amended by 2017 Tenn. Acts, ch. 108,Secs.s1, s2, s3 eff. 4/7/2017.

Acts 1937, ch. 276, §§ 1, 2; 1949, ch. 18, §§ 1-3; mod. C. Supp. 1950, §§ 11818.1, 11818.2 (Williams, §§ 11843.1, 11843.2); Acts 1961, ch. 93, § 1; 1963, ch. 288, § 1; 1970, ch. 488, § 1; 1972, ch. 636, §§ 1-8; 1976, ch. 806, § 1(82); 1978, ch. 929, § 6; 1979, ch. 359, §§ 2-5, 7; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 359, §§ 5, 26; Acts 1980, ch. 584, § 1; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 40-3601(3); Acts 1984, ch. 736, § 1; 1989, ch. 506, §§ 1, 2; 1998, ch. 1049, § 66.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case: Danny A. Stewart v. Derrick D. Schofield, Comm'r, Tennessee Dep't of Corr., 368 S.W.3d 457 (Tenn. 2012).
Danny A. Stewart v. Derrick D. Schofield, Comm'r, Tennessee Dep't of Corr., 368 S.W.3d 457 (Tenn. 2012). · cites it 2× “§ 4-3-601 (2011) (creating a "department of correction”), with Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-28-103(a) (2006) (creating a "board of probation and parole” and directing that "the board shall be separate functionally and administratively from any other agency”).”
Jeffrey Hughes v. Zane Duncan, 93 F.4th 374 (6th Cir. 2024). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-28-103 (a)–(b) (West 2024).”
Baldwin v. Tennessee Bd. of Paroles, 125 S.W.3d 429 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). “§ 40-28-103(c). Thus the effect of the twenty-year deferral is not only to preclude reconsideration of Mr.”
Carvin Thomas v. Richard Montgomery, 140 F.4th 335 (6th Cir. 2025). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-28-103 (a). The Board is responsible for determining inmates’ fitness for parole.”
William W. York v. Tennessee Bd. of Prob. & Parole (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-28-103(c). Thus the effect of the twenty-year deferral is not only to preclude reconsideration of Mr.”
Reginald Tutton v. Tennessee Bd. of Prob. & Parole (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “The Baldwin court noted that Board members are appointed to serve six-year staggered terms, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-28-103 (c), and that because of this length of a member’s term the effect of the twenty-year deferral is not only to preclude reconsideration of Mr.”
Gary Wayne Garrett v. Tennessee Bd. of Parole (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 40-28-103(a) (2018). 3 But, in his argument, Mr.”
Martin Walker v. Tennessee Bd. of Parole (2023). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-28-103 (b). Thus, a parolee who has been denied parole but who is granted a subsequent hearing two or more years later will appear before a Board that is comprised of different rnembers.”
Williams v. TDOC (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-28-103 . The petitioner next contends that adjustment to his sentence is mandated by the criminal savings statute which was codified at Tenn.”
Jeffrey Lynn Bush v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-28-103 , - 106. As established by our legislature, the authority to grant paroles is not judicial in nature, but is administrative.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-28-103(a) — 2 cases
Danny A. Stewart v. Derrick D. Schofield, Comm'r, Tennessee Dep't of Corr., 368 S.W.3d 457 (Tenn. 2012). “§ 4-3-601 (2011) (creating a "department of correction”), with Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-28-103(a) (2006) (creating a "board of probation and parole” and directing that "the board shall be separate functionally and administratively from any other agency”).”
Gary Wayne Garrett v. Tennessee Bd. of Parole (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 40-28-103(a) (2018). 3 But, in his argument, Mr.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-28-103(c) — 2 cases
Baldwin v. Tennessee Bd. of Paroles, 125 S.W.3d 429 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). “§ 40-28-103(c). Thus the effect of the twenty-year deferral is not only to preclude reconsideration of Mr.”
William W. York v. Tennessee Bd. of Prob. & Parole (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-28-103(c). Thus the effect of the twenty-year deferral is not only to preclude reconsideration of Mr.”
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.