Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-24-101 (2026)
Short title
✓ current as of May 2026
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Private Prison Contracting Act of 1986."
Acts 1986, ch. 932, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: Richardson v. McKnight, 521 U.S. 399 (1997).
Richardson v. McKnight, 521 U.S. 399 (1997). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-24-101 et seq. (1990 and Supp.”
Sandy Eugene Womack v. Corr. Corp. Of Am. D/B/A Whiteville Corr. Facility, 448 S.W.3d 362 (Tenn. 2014). “§ 41-24—102(4)—"any adult institution operated by or under the authority of [TDOC] ”—lends credence to its contention that a "facility operated by [TDOC] ” includes a facility operated by a private corporation.”
Mandela v. Campbell, 978 S.W.2d 531 (Tenn. 1998). “The Private Prison Contracting Act is codified at Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 41-24-101 to 115 and provides in pertinent part: No contract for correctional services shall authorize, allow or imply a delegation of the authority or responsibility of the commissioner to a prison contractor…”
Friedmann v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 310 S.W.3d 366 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “* * * [TJJntil the Private Prison Contracting Act of 1986, [Tenn.Code Ann. § 41-24-101], neither the [S]tate nor a private prison contractor could enter into a contract to provide correctional services at a prison in Tennessee.”
Alexander Baxter v. Dept. of Corr. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “” Baxter argues further that, by not following its own procedures requiring a “commissioner’s designee” to observe all Class B disciplinary hearings, TDOC violated the Private Prison Contracting Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-24-101 et seq. (1997), which prohibits delegating inmate…”
Est. of Kelly Joe Morgan Lynn v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). “at 498–99 (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-24-101 , et seq. (allowing the State to employ independent contractors to perform prison functions with certain limitations)).”
Caraway v. CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC (W.D. Tenn. 2023). “) CoreCivic has statutory authority to operate private prisons in the State of Tennessee under the Private Prison Contracting Act of 1986, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 41-24-101 through 41-24-119, and acted under the color of state law and in compliance with the laws of the State of…”
Williams v. CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC (W.D. Tenn. 2025). “) CoreCivic has statutory authority to operate private prisons in the State of Tennessee pursuant to the Private Prison Contracting Act of 1986, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 41-24-101 through 41-24-119, and is required to operate the the WCF in compliance with Tennessee law and their…”
Calvin (M.D. Tenn. 2026). “§§ 41-24-101 et seq., and/or§§ 48-8-101 et seq.”
Pigg v. Casteel (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). “We begin our discussion with the Private Prison Contracting Act of 1986, Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-24-101 et seq., and specifically with Tenn.”
Alex Friedmann v. Corr. Corp. of Am. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “§ 41-24-101 ], neither the [S]tate nor a private prison contractor could enter into a contract to provide correctional services at a prison in Tennessee.”
Dan Johnson v. Corr. Corp. of Am. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “§ 4-3-603, and § 41-24-101 et seq; and Tennessee Department of Correction Policy Number 9501.”
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.