Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-2-511 (2026)

Uniform rules of practice - Designation of court by certain types of cases

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Uniform rules of practice may be promulgated in each district by the judges of the district. The rules shall be consistent with the statutory law, the rules of the supreme court and the rules of criminal and civil procedure. The judges within a district may, by rule, designate courts or parts of a court that will be primarily responsible for hearing certain types of cases or cases dealing with certain areas of the law. Not less than thirty (30) days prior to the rules taking effect, copies of the rules shall be published and circulated to the practicing bar and filed with the administrative director of the courts.

Acts 1984, ch. 931, § 11; 1993, ch. 66, § 17.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1994–2020 · leading case: Hessmer v. Hessmer, 138 S.W.3d 901 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).
Hessmer v. Hessmer, 138 S.W.3d 901 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “2000). 4 . Trial courts may adopt local rules of practice that do not conflict with the rules adopted by the Tennessee Supreme Court or other substantive rules of state law.”
Tigg v. Pirelli Tire Corp., 232 S.W.3d 28 (Tenn. 2007). · cites it 2× “; see Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-2-511 (1994). In Aguilera v.”
Brown v. Daly, 884 S.W.2d 121 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994). “Tennessee Code Annotated § 16-2-511 and Rule 18 of the Rules of the Supreme *124 Court vest in the trial courts.”
Connie Reguli v. Sharon Guffee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-2-511 (2009) (“Uniform rules of practice may be promulgated in each district by the judges of the district.”
In re Est. of Marie Anderson Young (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “Tennessee Code Annotated Section 16-2-511 provides: Uniform rules of practice may be promulgated in each district by the judges of the district.”
Tracy Robinson v. Chester Ault (Tenn. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “At least five (5) business days before trial, the -3- her Counter-Claim.” Trial courts have clear authority to adopt local rules of practice to supplement the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Nashville Cmty. Bail Fund, The v. Howard Gentry (M.D. Tenn. 2020). · cites it 2× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-2-511 . Among those Rules may be rules governing the process of reviewing pretrial detention decisions, as is the case in the Twentieth Judicial District, which has a fairly lengthy and detailed set of Local Rules of Practice for Bail Bonds.”
Nashville Cmty. Bail Fund, The v. Howard Gentry (M.D. Tenn. 2020). · cites it 2× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-2-511 . Among those rules may be rules governing the process for reviewing pretrial detention decisions, as is the case in the Twentieth Judicial District, which has a fairly lengthy and detailed set of Local Rules of Practice for Bail Bonds.”
Est. of Sue Bratton Thompson (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “2003) (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-2-511 (2009)). Here, the trial court explicitly relied on the percentage formula set forth in Local Rule 33.”
Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., Tennessee v. Walter Cuozzo (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “18(a); Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 16-2-511 , 16-3-407 (1994).”
Moses Pieny v. United Imports, Inc. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “18(a)(1); see also Tenn.Code Ann. § 16-2-511. However, the first part of United’s two-step challenge concerns the mode of practice under these local rules and the effect of those rules on a controversy.”
Thomas K. Bowers v. Gutterguard of Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-2-511 . The Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure are “laws” of this state and cannot be modified or abrogated by a rule of Court.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-2-511(1994) — 1 case
Hessmer v. Hessmer, 138 S.W.3d 901 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). “2000). 4 . Trial courts may adopt local rules of practice that do not conflict with the rules adopted by the Tennessee Supreme Court or other substantive rules of state law.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.