Opinion

Fairhaven Corp. v. Tennessee Health Facilities Commission

  • 566 S.W.2d 885
  • 1976 Tenn. App. LEXIS 270
Court
Court of Appeals of Tennessee
Filed
May 7, 1976
Status
Published
Author
Todd
On the bench
Drowota, Shriver, Todd
Cited by
50 cases

explaining that the procedural framework for review under both the common law and statutory writs appears in Ch. 9 of Title 27

How later courts described this case

  • explaining that the procedural framework for review under both the common law and statutory writs appears in Ch. 9 of Title 27
  • the procedural framework for review under both the common law and statutory writs appears in ch. 9 of Title 27
  • “This time limit applies to common law as well as statutory writs.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

TODD, Judge,

dissenting in part.

The conclusions reached in the principal opinion regarding the untimeliness of the petition for statutory review are correct.

However, the petition alleges grounds for common law certiorari in that it is alleged that the Commission acted illegally in procedure which did not conform to due process. In this aspect, it was timely filed and should not be dismissed without inquiry into such grounds.

The provisions of § 53-5415 are not deemed to limit the time for filing certiora-ri in respect to such grounds.

The denial of statutory relief should be affirmed, but the cause should be remanded for further proceedings limited to relief available under the common law writ of certiorari.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.