John Hamilton v. Metropolitan Government Of Nashville And Davidson County
M2016-00446-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Oct 25, 2016Background
- Vacancy arose in Metro Council District 1; Davidson County Election Commission (DCEC) received notice on Feb 3, 2016 and voted to place the election to fill the vacancy on Aug 4, 2016 (concurrent with a general election).
- Appellant John Hamilton, a registered voter and District 1 constituent, filed a petition (declaratory judgment, mandamus, and later writ of certiorari) asserting Metro Charter §15.03 required a special election within 80 days and that the DCEC erred by scheduling the August election instead.
- Appellees (Metropolitan Government and DCEC) moved to dismiss under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6), arguing lack of standing, correctness of DCEC action, no duty to hold a special election, and procedural defects.
- The trial court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of standing; Hamilton appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the complaint de novo under the 12.02(6) standard and focused on whether Hamilton alleged a distinct, palpable injury sufficient to confer standing.
- The court concluded Hamilton alleged only generalized voter grievances (denied opportunity to vote sooner and to run) and failed to plead an injury different from the general public, so dismissal for lack of standing was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Hamilton have standing to challenge the election date? | Hamilton: as a District 1 voter and eligible candidate he suffered a distinct injury — denied timely vote and right to seek office. | DCEC/Metro: Hamilton lacks standing; his alleged harms are generalized and common to all citizens. | No standing; alleged injuries are generalized, not a special injury. |
| If standing exists, is the challenge moot? | Hamilton: (argued implicit) relief needed to remedy scheduling conflict. | Defendants: (did not need to reach mootness after standing) | Court pretermitted mootness after finding lack of standing. |
| If not moot and standing exists, did DCEC err in scheduling election? | Hamilton: Charter required a special election within the prescribed time. | DCEC/Metro: no duty to hold special standalone election; scheduling was proper. | Not reached—case dismissed for lack of standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Leggett v. Duke Energy Corp., 308 S.W.3d 843 (Tenn. 2010) (12.02(6) motion: decision based on pleadings alone)
- Tigg v. Pirelli Tire Corp., 232 S.W.3d 28 (Tenn. 2007) (complaint construed liberally; factual allegations presumed true on motion to dismiss)
- Crews v. Buckman Labs Int'l, Inc., 78 S.W.3d 852 (Tenn. 2002) (dismiss only when plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling relief)
- Mayhew v. Wilder, 46 S.W.3d 760 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (standing requires a personal, direct injury distinct from the public at large)
- Parks v. Alexander, 608 S.W.2d 881 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980) (status as a voter alone is insufficient for standing)
- Moyers v. Sherrod, 525 S.W.2d 126 (Tenn. 1975) (private citizen cannot maintain action against public official absent special injury)
- Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (U.S. 1984) (standing inquiry focuses on whether particular plaintiff is entitled to adjudication of asserted claims)