In Re Hooker
340 S.W.3d 389
Tenn.2011Background
- Hooker filed numerous lawsuits challenging Tennessee campaign-finance and judge-selection schemes over two decades.
- He sought to attack the validity of this Court’s judges and at times alleged misconduct by judges in appellate and trial proceedings.
- This Court previously denied recusal requests and addressed his suspension appeal as to a 30‑day license suspension, which he did not properly perfect for review.
- The Chancery Court suspended Hooker’s law license for 30 days in 2008; Hooker appealed, but he did not complete appellate steps, and the Supreme Court entered enforcement orders in 2010.
- Hooker also filed a Tennessee Court of the Judiciary complaint alleging ethical and criminal misconduct by the Court’s members, which the Court of the Judiciary dismissed.
- In 2010 and 2011, Hooker sought relief from this Court to rescind enforcement orders and to reinstate review, leading to the current discretionary disqualification ruling by the Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court should disqualify itself from Hooker’s case. | Hooker asserts bias due to appointment/election challenges. | No objective basis exists for disqualification given public-record facts. | No disqualification required; no reasonable basis for impartiality questions. |
| Whether the June 21, 2010 order directing no further filings should be set aside. | Hooker seeks to overturn continued restriction on filings. | Order remains proper despite later papers raising new issues. | June 21 order remains in effect for pre‑existing grounds; certain new papers exception acknowledged. |
| Whether the February 12, 2010 order of enforcement should be rescinded. | Hooker seeks collateral attack on final enforcement order. | Court lacks posture and briefs to reconsider now. | Court cannot address absent proper record; enforcement stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bean v. Bailey, 280 S.W.3d 798 (Tenn. 2009) (recusal requires objective basis for impartiality)
- State v. Austin, 87 S.W.3d 447 (Tenn. 2002) (fundamental right to impartial judges; prejudgment concerns)
- Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1998) (objective standard for recusal)
- Davis v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 38 S.W.3d 560 (Tenn. 2001) (impartiality standard for recusal)
- Cannon v. State, 254 S.W.3d 287 (Tenn.2008) (objective basis for disqualification; factual analysis)
- Board of Prof'l Responsibility v. Cawood, 330 S.W.3d 608 (Tenn.2010) (controls review of appellate petitions under 27-9-101 et seq.)
- Hooker v. Sundquist, 107 S.W.3d 532 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2002) (sanctions and screening mechanism; appellate review context)
- Hooker v. Crawford, No. M2005-00052-COA-R3-CV, 2006 WL 140379 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2006) (disciplinary sanctions review context)