Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-3-209 (2026)

Prosecuting attorney's office - Compensation not decreased - Authorized and unauthorized use of funds

✓ current as of May 2026

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

(a) Nothing in this part shall be construed to decrease the total salaries, expense funds and allowances that the prosecuting attorney's office is receiving on July 1, 1984.

(b) The district attorney general shall not use any of the funds collected pursuant to this part to supplement the district attorney general's salary, or to supplement the salary of any assistant district attorney general or other employee of a district attorney general, except as provided in § 40-3-202(5); provided, that should the state of Tennessee not have funds available to pay the salary and benefits of any district attorney general, assistant district attorney general or other employee of a district attorney general's office authorized by law to receive pay and benefits from the state of Tennessee, then in that event each district attorney general shall have the authority to transfer an amount from funds collected pursuant to this part sufficient to meet the district attorney general's office payroll to the state general fund, earmarked for payment of the salaries and benefits of the employees of the transferring district attorney general, so long as such funds exist. In no case shall any salaries and benefits so paid be greater than those otherwise authorized by state law. Funds collected pursuant to this part shall be expended only in furtherance of the purposes of this part.

Acts 1984, ch. 998, §§ 8, 10; 1992, ch. 785, § 1; 2003 , ch. 291, § 4.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1999–1999 · leading case: Waller v. Bryan, 16 S.W.3d 770 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Waller v. Bryan, 16 S.W.3d 770 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 6× “The Chancellor dismissed the case, finding that Appellant’s discovery rights in the criminal case are governed by T.C.A. § 40-3-209 and Supreme Court Rule 28, which do not provide for a petition in Chancery Court.”

Ronald Bradford Waller v. Melinda Ryan & WM. H. Cox, III (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 6× “The Chancellor dismissed the case, finding that Appellant's discovery rights in the criminal case are governed by T.C.A. § 40-3-209 and Supreme Court Rule 28, which do not provide for a petition in Chancery Court.”

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.