Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-11-101 (2026)
Short title
✓ current as of May 2026
Sections 40-11-101 - 40-11-144 shall be known as and may be cited as the "Release from Custody and Bail Reform Act of 1978."
Acts 1978, ch. 506, § 1; T.C.A., § 40-1201.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Graham v. Gen. Sessions Court of Franklin Cnty., 157 S.W.3d 790 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
Graham v. Gen. Sessions Court of Franklin Cnty., 157 S.W.3d 790 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). “Although Appellants suggest a number of ways in which the June 4, 2002 order violates the statutory scheme, we will focus on two of those arguments, the first of which we find to be dispositive of this case, and the second of which we find illuminating as to the legislative…”
Indem. Ins. Co. of North Am. v. Blackwell, 653 S.W.2d 262 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983). “This relationship is governed in relevant part by “The Release From Custody and Bail Reform Act of 1978,” T.C.A. §§ 40-11-101 et seq., and the common law of Tennessee.”
State v. Clements, 925 S.W.2d 224 (Tenn. 1996). “Such sureties under this section shall not be professional bondsmen or attorneys; or (3) A solvent corporate surety or sureties or a professional bail bondsman as approved, qualified or regulated by §§ 40-11-101 — 40-11-144 and part 3 of this chapter.”
State of Tennessee Ex Rel. Rachel Beth Haynes v. Allan Vincent Daugherty (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019). “Accordingly, in order to comport with the Equal Protection guarantees of both constitutions in a child support enforcement action, the court must follow the applicable bail statutes set forth in the Release from Custody and Bail Reform Act of 1978, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-11-101…”
In Re: Cumberland Bail Bonding (Tenn. 2020). “In another portion of the 1978 Act, the General Assembly has declared its intent that Tennessee Code Annotated sections 40-11-101 to 40-11-144 “shall be supplemental to the laws providing for and regulating professional bail bondsmen, who may continue to secure the bail bonds…”
State of Tennessee v. Clayton Nelvis (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025). “I, § 15; Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-11-101 , et seq. That release may occur on the individual’s recognizance or may be conditioned upon various measures intended to protect public safety and secure the defendant’s appearance in court.”
State of Tennessee v. Evan Deyo (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012). “” (2) That minimum bail policy “is in conflict with the entire statutory scheme of the Bail Reform Act of 1978, T.C.A. §§ 40-11-101 et. seq.” Since these issues were not included within the certified question reserved for appeal, we are unable to address them.”
Am. Bonding Co. v. Sandra Vaughn (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). “Furthermore, we have independently reviewed Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-11-101 , et seq., the section of our code 1 The agreement Ms.”
State of Tennessee v. AAA Aaron's Action Agency Bail Bonds, Inc. (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-11-101 et seq. Although the state has been unable to cite any statutory provision authorizing a suspension for such a failure, it still insists the trial courts have such authority.”
State v. Sharon Melton In Re: City Bonding Compnay d/b/a A-1 Bonding Co. (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). “” Tenn. Code Ann. §40-11-101 (1990). Moreover, the language of section 40-11-138(b) clearly directs that it is “[i]n addition to any other provisions releasing sureties from their obligations.”
State of Tennessee v. Nicholas Larsen (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013). “He also alleged that the Shelby County General Sessions Court’s policy of requiring a minimum $1000 bond in all DUI cases was unconstitutional pursuant to article I, section 16 of the Tennessee Constitution and conflicted with the Release from Custody and Bail Reform Act of…”
In Re: Int. Fid. Ins. Nat. Assoc. of Bail Ins. Co. (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). “§ 40-11-101 to -405 (1997). Additionally, a trial court possesses inherent power to administer its affairs, including the right to impose reasonable regulations regarding bail bonds.”
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.