Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-31-101 (2026)

Enactment of agreement - Text

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

The agreement on detainers is hereby enacted into law and entered into by this state with all other jurisdictions legally joining therein in the form substantially as follows:

The contracting states solemnly agree that:

Acts 1970, ch. 560, § 1; 1972, ch. 865, § 1; T.C.A., § 40-3901.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 57 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: State of Tennessee v. Michael Shane Springer, 406 S.W.3d 526 (Tenn. 2013).
State of Tennessee v. Michael Shane Springer, 406 S.W.3d 526 (Tenn. 2013). · cites it 42× “In this appeal, we interpret the meaning of the phrase “term of imprisonment” in Articles III and IV of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (“IAD”), Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-31-101 to -108 (2006), and determine whether the defendant is entitled to relief under the IAD.”
State v. Hall, 976 S.W.2d 121 (Tenn. 1998). · cites it 16× “Specifically, appellant Hall argues that once the state requested that he be returned from Kentucky pursuant to the Interstate Compact on Detainers, it was obligated to comply with all of its requirements. Therefore, appellant Hall submits that the state was not entitled to…”
State v. Wood, 924 S.W.2d 342 (Tenn. 1996). · cites it 7× “Although given legal authority to proceed against him, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-31-101 et seq. (1990 Repl.”
State v. Brown, 53 S.W.3d 264 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). · cites it 10× “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-31-101, art. I. The provisions of the Agreement are triggered only when a “detainer” is filed with the *285 custodial or sending state, which includes the United States, by another state which has untried charges pending against the prisoner.”
Dillon v. State, 844 S.W.2d 139 (Tenn. 1992). · cites it 16× “This case involves a “speedy trial” provision of the Interstate Compact on Detain-ers, T.C.A. §§ 40-31-101 to 108 (1990). Specifically, we must decide whether the statute’s 120-day period for bringing a prisoner to trial was tolled by (1) the State’s having obtained a…”
State v. Hill, 875 S.W.2d 278 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). · cites it 11× “While the final sentencing hearing in this ease was not held until some two hundred eleven days after September 18, 1991, the date on which appellant signed his request for final disposition of the charges against him, the Compact was not violated. The purpose of the Compact is…”
State v. Henretta, 325 S.W.3d 112 (Tenn. 2010). · cites it 4× “The so-called “anti-shuttling” provision of the Compact provides as follows: If trial is not had on any indictment, information or complaint contemplated hereby prior to the prisoner’s being returned to the original place of imprisonment pursuant to article V(e) hereof, such…”
State ex rel. Young v. Rose, 670 S.W.2d 238 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984). · cites it 14× “, TCA § 40-31-101, et seq. The appellants requested a hearing and filed their petitions for the writ of habeas corpus to contest their transfers.”
Womble v. State, 957 S.W.2d 839 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). · cites it 12× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-31-101 (1990). Article 111(a) provides: Whenever a person has entered upon a term of imprisonment in a penal or correctional institution of a party state, and whenever during the continuance of the term of imprisonment there is pending in any other party…”
Griffin v. State, 182 S.W.3d 795 (Tenn. 2006). · cites it 2× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-31-101(2003 & Supp. 2005) (emphasis added).”
State v. Gipson, 670 S.W.2d 637 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984). · cites it 6× “The issue presented in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in overruling the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment based on the fact that the defendant was not tried within one hundred eighty (180) days of his giving formal notice for disposition of his case…”
State v. Warren, 740 S.W.2d 427 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “In his petition and at the evidentiary hearing, Warren claimed that he had complied with the provisions of the Interstate Compact on Detainers, T.C.A. § 40-31-101, et seq., in an effort to obtain a speedy hearing in Ohio on the probation violation charge, but that Ohio had…”
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.