In preparing the Survey of Administrative Law for 1964, we find only eleven cases upon which to comment. Seven of them arise from a single field of administrative action, i.e., the work of County Beer Boards. One is a zoning variation case, another involves a realtor's license revocation, and the other two are lower federal court cases decided in Tennessee, one relating to social security, and the other to an interpretation of the abandonment provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act. Compared with many other states this is a modest showing. Indeed, when one takes account of the number of boards and commissions in Tennessee the number of cases is extraordinarily small.
The principal administrative agencies in this state with authority over rule-making and contested cases are the Railroad and Public Utility Commission, the Employee Security Commission, the Commissioner of Revenue, the Commissioner of Insurance and Banking, the State Aeronautics Commission, the County Beer Boards, and a host of business and professional licensing agencies such as the Real Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Estate Commission, the Medical Examiners Board, the Pharmacy Board, the Dental Examiners Board, and the Barbers Board." Possibly the small number of cases reaching the courts from these agencies reflects a high measure of satisfaction with the administrative process in Tennessee. Or possibly it indicates that the procedures available at the administrative level and for court review of administrative decisions are not calculated to facilitate presentation and examination of the issues, and hence private interests are not as well served as they should be. With this preliminary observation we proceed to examine the eleven cases.
E. Blythe Stason,
Annual Survey of Tennessee Law,
18 Vanderbilt Law Review
Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol18/iss3/7