Tennessee § 16-18-311 - Compliance with the procedures and requirements for concurrent general sessions jurisdiction — Feasibility study committee to determine need of additional court to exercise general sessions jurisdiction.

§ 16-18-311. Compliance with the procedures and requirements for concurrent general sessions jurisdiction — Feasibility study committee to determine need of additional court to exercise general sessions jurisdiction.

Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, on or after May 12, 2003, concurrent general sessions jurisdiction shall be newly conferred upon an existing or newly created municipal court only in compliance with the procedures and requirements set forth in this section. A majority of the total membership of the municipal legislative body must vote in favor of seeking concurrent general sessions jurisdiction for an existing or newly created municipal court. The municipal legislative body must notify, by petition, the county legislative body of the municipality's intention to seek concurrent general sessions jurisdiction for the municipal court. The petition must contain the following: A plan for an adequate and secure courtroom; Agreement to comply with state mandated technical computer support comparable with the Tennessee court information system (TnCIS) program specifications and requirements; Agreement to comply with state laws governing general sessions court litigation taxes, costs, fees and assessments and to legally remit such items to the state department of revenue or to the county government, if appropriate; and Agreement to comply with state laws subjecting the financial transactions of the court to annual public audits. The municipal legislative body and the county legislative body must appoint a feasibility study committee. The membership of the committee shall consist of the county mayor, the municipal mayor, one (1) member of the municipal legislative body, one (1) member of the county legislative body, the district attorney general who serves the county and the district public defender who serves the county. The membership of the committee shall also consist of three (3) members appointed by the municipal legislative body from the following list: the chief of police, the city recorder/clerk, the city judge, the city attorney, and one (1) citizen member. The membership of the committee shall also consist of three (3) members appointed by the county legislative body from the following list: the sheriff who serves the county, a general sessions judge who serves the county, the general sessions court clerk, the county attorney, and one (1) citizen member. The feasibility study committee shall determine whether the county requires an additional court to exercise general sessions jurisdiction. In making the determination, the committee shall consider and evaluate the following factors: The economic, administrative and personnel impact of the proposal upon the existing general sessions court; The impact of the proposal upon existing judicial services and law enforcement resources; The extent, if any, to which the proposed plan is necessary to promote and ensure the efficient administration of justice in relation to county and municipal populations, county population density, geographic logistics and distances, caseloads, the number of judges, and the current caseload burden on the existing system; The plan's provision of adequate secure and comparable courtroom facilities for the hearing of cases in that location; The extent, if any, to which the proposed plan would unduly burden the existing staffs of the district attorney general or district public defender and the extent, if any, to which the plan proposes adequate funding for additional staff requirements; and The extent, if any, to which the proposed plan would provide for compliance with state mandated technical computer support. By majority vote of its total membership, the feasibility study committee must agree upon written findings and recommendations and must submit the findings and recommendations to the municipal legislative body and to the county legislative body. The findings and recommendations must include one of the following alternatives: There is a clearly demonstrated need for a new general sessions court in the county, and the court would best be administered by the county; There is a clearly demonstrated need for a new general sessions court in the county, and the court would best be administered by the municipality, either as a new or existing municipal court with concurrent general sessions jurisdiction; or There is no clearly demonstrated need, at the time, for any of the alternatives set forth in subdivisions (a)(6)(A) and (B). If the feasibility study committee determines that there is no clearly demonstrated need for any of the alternatives set forth in subdivisions (a)(6)(A) and (B), then for one (1) year thereafter, neither the county nor the municipality may pursue further implementation of any of the alternatives set forth in subdivision (a)(6)(A) or (a)(6)(B). After passage of one (1) year, if the majority of the total membership of the municipal legislative body again votes in favor of seeking concurrent general sessions jurisdiction for an existing or newly created municipal court, then a petition must again be submitted to the county legislative body and the procedures set forth in this section must again be followed. If the feasibility study committee recommends any one (1) of the findings set forth in subdivision (a)(6)(A) or (a)(6)(B), and if the county wishes to pursue creation of a new general sessions court in the county or if the municipality wishes to pursue extension of concurrent general sessions jurisdiction to a newly created or existing municipal court, then the county or municipality, as appropriate, shall: Submit the written findings and recommendations of the feasibility study committee to the judiciary committee of the senate and the judiciary committee of the house of representatives; and Cause legislation to be timely introduced for consideration by the general assembly. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, any legislation proposed to create a new general sessions court or to create a new municipal court with concurrent general sessions jurisdiction or to confer concurrent general sessions jurisdiction on an existing municipal court must be approved by a majority of the total membership of the judiciary committee of the senate prior to passage by the senate and must be approved by a majority of the total membership of the judiciary committee of the house of representatives prior to passage by the house of representatives. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, if a municipality is located in two (2) or more counties of this state, then, as used in this section, “county” means the county of this state containing the largest geographical portion of the municipality. Acts 2004, ch. 914, § 2; 2013, ch. 236, § 32; 2019, ch. 345, § 22; 2019, ch. 420, § 12. Compiler's Notes. Former part 3, § 16-18-301 (Acts 1999, ch. 149, § 1), concerning administration of oaths by municipal court judges, was repealed and replaced by Acts 2004, ch. 914, § 2, effective March 1, 2005. Acts 2004, ch. 914, § 8(b) provided that, notwithstanding any provision of former§ 16-17-101(c) , or any other law to the contrary, from May 12, 2003, through March 1, 2005, concurrent general sessions jurisdiction shall not be newly conferred upon any existing or newly created municipal court. Amendments. The 2013 amendment substituted “the civil justice committee of the house of representatives” for “the judiciary committee of the house of representatives” in (a)(8)(A) and (b). The 2019 amendment by ch. 345 substituted “judiciary” for “civil justice” preceding “committee of the house” in (a)(8)(A) and (b). The 2019 amendment by ch. 420 rewrote former (a)(8), which read: “If the feasibility study committee recommends any one (1) of the findings set forth in subdivision (a)(6)(A) or (a)(6)(B), and if the county wishes to pursue creation of a new general sessions court in the county or if the municipality wishes to pursue extension of concurrent general sessions jurisdiction to a newly created or existing municipal court, then the county or municipality, as appropriate, shall: “(A) Submit the written findings and recommendations of the feasibility study committee to the judiciary committee of the senate, the civil justice committee of the house of representatives and the judicial council;“(B) Cause legislation to be timely prepared and submitted for review and evaluation by the judicial council in accordance with procedures set forth in § 16-21-107(a)(3) for a judicial district seeking creation of a state trial court; and”. Effective Dates. Acts 2013, ch. 236, § 94. April 19, 2013. Acts 2019, ch. 345, § 148. May 10, 2019. Acts 2019, ch. 420, § 27. May 21, 2019. Attorney General Opinions. Failure to comply with T.C.A. § 16-18-311(b) would not affect the validity of a private act creating new part of a county general sessions court so long as it was adopted in compliance with constitutional requirements, OAG 06-087 (5/11/06).