Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-3-403 (2026)

Rules not to affect substantive rights - Consistency with constitutions

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The rules prescribed by the supreme court pursuant to § 16-3-402 shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right, and shall be consistent with the constitutions of the United States and Tennessee.

Acts 1965, ch. 227, § 2; T.C.A., § 16-113.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Eddie C. Pratcher, Jr. v. Methodist Healthcare Memphis Hospitals, 407 S.W.3d 727 (Tenn. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Eddie C. Pratcher, Jr. v. Methodist Healthcare Memphis Hospitals, 407 S.W.3d 727 (Tenn. 2013). · cites it 4× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-3-403 (2009). The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recognized the possible tension between the statute of repose and Rule 8.”

State v. Pettus, 986 S.W.2d 540 (Tenn. 1999). · cites it 2× “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 16-3-403 (1994) (stating that court rules "shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right”).”

Glassman, Edwards, Wyatt, Tuttle & Cox, P.C. v. B. J. Wade, 404 S.W.3d 464 (Tenn. 2013). · cites it 2× “1977)); see also Tenn.Code Ann. § 16-3-403 (2009) (“The rules prescribed by the supreme court .”

Corum v. Holston Health & Rehab. Ctr., 104 S.W.3d 451 (Tenn. 2003). · cites it 2× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 16-3-403 (1999). Additionally, “[a]fter such rules shall have become effective, all laws in conflict therewith shall be of no further force or effect.”

Drennon v. Gen. Elec. Co. & Elec. Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 897 S.W.2d 243 (Tenn. 1994). · cites it 2× “01(3) was not in existence at the time the discovery deposition was taken, but it was in full force and effect throughout the present case.”

Rhonda Willeford v. Timothy P. Klepper, M. D. (Tenn. 2020). · cites it 2× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-3-402 (2009). However, “[t]he rules prescribed by the supreme court pursuant to § 16-3-402 shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right, and shall be consistent with the constitutions of the United States and Tennessee.”

In Re Lucas H. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “at 465 (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-3-403 ). Therefore, as we understand it, Rule 40 does not abrogate Mother’s privilege as Father and the GAL assert.”

State of Tennessee v. Tyrome Cameron Ferguson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026). · cites it 2× “Tennessee Code Annotated section 16-3-403 provides that “[t]he rules prescribed by the supreme court pursuant to [Code section] 16-3-402 shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right, and shall be consistent with the constitutions of the United States and Tennessee.”

Helen S. Rogers v. Thomas E. Watts, Jr., - Concurring (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “The only statute purporting to limit the scope of the Tennessee Supreme Court’s rulemaking authority is Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-3-403 (1994) which states that “[t]he rules prescribed by the supreme court pursuant to § 16-3-402 shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive…”

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.