Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-4-101 (2026)

Reorganization of divisions

✓ current as of May 2026

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

(a) The commissioner of each department under chapter 3 of this title, with the approval of the governor, has the authority to consolidate any two (2) or more offices within the commissioner's department, or reduce the number of divisions, or create new divisions therein.

(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), no state department or agency in the executive branch of state government shall make organizational changes within such department or agency without the prior approval of the commissioner of finance and administration. If such organizational changes require a transfer of funds between organizational accounts and are contrary to the manner in which appropriations have been made in the appropriations act, then such transfer of funds is subject to approval by the commissioner of finance and administration and by a majority of a committee comprised of the speaker of the senate, the speaker of the house of representatives, and the comptroller of the treasury; provided, however, that if the transfer of funds is merely a change in the organizational account to which the appropriation is allocated and does not constitute a change in the purpose of the appropriation, then the approval of the committee shall not be required; provided further, however, that the approval of the commissioner of finance and administration shall be required.

Amended by 2013 Tenn. Acts, ch. 454, s 32, eff. 5/16/2013.

Acts 1937, ch. 33, § 76; C. Supp. 1950, § 255.88 (Williams, §255.81); T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 4-401.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2002–2002 · leading case: Hawkins v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., 127 S.W.3d 749 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hawkins v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., 127 S.W.3d 749 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “The Court also noted that because Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-4-101 was a statute of specific nature which had been interpreted by the Supreme Court as placing venue for suits against certain state officials in Davidson County, it prevailed over a statute of more general application.”

Barton Hawkins v. Dept of Corr. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “The Court also noted that because Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-4-101 was a statute of specific nature which had been interpreted by the Supreme Court as placing venue for suits against certain state officials in Davidson County, it prevailed over a statute of more general application.”

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.