Tenn. Code Ann. » Tenn. Code / Title 17 / Chapter 5 / Part 3
Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 17-5-304 (2026)

Investigation and dismissal of groundless complaint

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

If it is determined that the charges against a judge are frivolous or unfounded, or beyond the permissible scope of the board's inquiry, the matter will be closed and all documents, records, and papers pertaining to the charges must be destroyed and the board's docket must recite the investigation and dismissal of a groundless complaint.

Amended by 2019 Tenn. Acts, ch. 496,s 1, eff. 7/1/2019.

Acts 1979, ch. 356, § 14; T.C.A., § 17-814; Acts 1983, ch. 17, § 2; 1995, ch. 208, § 11; 2002, ch. 564, §§ 10, 16; 2012, ch. 819, §§ 2, 4; 2012.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1987–2011 · leading case: In re Murphy, 726 S.W.2d 509 (Tenn. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Murphy, 726 S.W.2d 509 (Tenn. 1987). · cites it 6× “§ 17-5-304 requires that the court proceed with its investigation by obtaining sworn statements from, “the complaining party, the judge under investigation and any witnesses identified or produced by them.”
In Re Bell, 344 S.W.3d 304 (Tenn. 2011). · cites it 2× “We do not interpret section 17-5-304(c) to prevent disciplinary counsel from investigating and formally charging additional violations arising from conduct taking place after disciplinary counsel provided the statutorily required notice.”
In re Brown, 879 S.W.2d 801 (Tenn. 1994). · cites it 8× “Inman, who had been appointed by the Court of the Judiciary to investigate the complaint, advised the appellant by letter that a sworn response to the complaint, as required by T.C.A. § 17-5-304, was expected. The appellant made no response.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 17-5-304(a) — 1 case
In re Brown, 879 S.W.2d 801 (Tenn. 1994). “Inman, who had been appointed by the Court of the Judiciary to investigate the complaint, advised the appellant by letter that a sworn response to the complaint, as required by T.C.A. § 17-5-304, was expected. The appellant made no response.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 17-5-304(c) — 1 case
In Re Bell, 344 S.W.3d 304 (Tenn. 2011). “We do not interpret section 17-5-304(c) to prevent disciplinary counsel from investigating and formally charging additional violations arising from conduct taking place after disciplinary counsel provided the statutorily required notice.”
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.