Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-33-207 (2026)
Hearing date
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) Within thirty (30) days from the day the claim is filed, the applicable agency shall establish a hearing date and set the case on the docket.
- (b) Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring the hearing to be conducted within the thirty-day period.
Acts 1994, ch. 925, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2015–2025 · leading case: State of Tennessee v. Charles D. Sprunger, 458 S.W.3d 482 (Tenn. 2015).
State of Tennessee v. Charles D. Sprunger, 458 S.W.3d 482 (Tenn. 2015). “§ 40-33-207(a) (2012). At the contested administrative hearing, the State must prove by a prepon- *498 deranee of the evidence that the property at issue is subject to forfeiture.”
Charles D. Sprunger v. Cumberland Cnty., TN Sheriff's Off. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017). “§ 40-33-204 (g)); and failure by an administrative agency to set and conduct a hearing ( Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-33-207 , -210). 5 House Floor discussion of HB 2409 at 26:32, 100th Gen.”
Abraham Asley Augustin v. Bradley Cnty. Sheriff's Off. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-33-209 (d) (2012). Within thirty days after the filing of the written claim and any applicable bond, the agency must establish a hearing date and set the case on its docket.”
Daysparkles Oliver v. Tennessee Dep't of Safter & Homeland Sec. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-33-207 (a). The administrative judge found no evidence in the record that the Department complied with this statutory requirement.”
Shell v. Purkey (TV1) (E.D. Tenn. 2017). “rative forfeiture by a policy, custom, practice, and/or procedure of use of bogus court subpoenas; Class B: Class Members who had their property seized and forfeited without a warrant or § 53-11-451(b) circuit or chancery court process; Class C: Class Members who had their…”
Larry Brown v. Tennessee Dep't of Saf. & Homeland & Sec. (2022). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-33-209 (d) (2012). Within thirty days after the filing of the written claim and any applicable bond, the agency must establish a hearing date and set the case on its docket.”
Gordon Groves v. City of Knoxville (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025). “Heredia and the Groveses (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)2 filed a motion for partial summary judgment, contending that because prior proceedings had established that Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-33-207(a) had been violated during the forfeiture proceedings, Plaintiffs should be…”
Gilbert Heredia v. City of Knoxville (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025). “Heredia and the Groveses (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)2 filed a motion for partial summary judgment, contending that because prior proceedings had established that Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-33-207(a) had been violated during the forfeiture proceedings, Plaintiffs should be…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-33-207(a) — 3 cases
State of Tennessee v. Charles D. Sprunger, 458 S.W.3d 482 (Tenn. 2015). “§ 40-33-207(a) (2012). At the contested administrative hearing, the State must prove by a prepon- *498 deranee of the evidence that the property at issue is subject to forfeiture.”
Gordon Groves v. City of Knoxville (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025). “Heredia and the Groveses (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)2 filed a motion for partial summary judgment, contending that because prior proceedings had established that Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-33-207(a) had been violated during the forfeiture proceedings, Plaintiffs should be…”
Gilbert Heredia v. City of Knoxville (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025). “Heredia and the Groveses (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)2 filed a motion for partial summary judgment, contending that because prior proceedings had established that Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-33-207(a) had been violated during the forfeiture proceedings, Plaintiffs should be…”
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.