Attorney General Opinions 
Relating to County Government

2001 Courts

• The term “general sessions court” cannot accurately be used to refer to a city court.  General sessions courts exist only in counties.  Opinion No. 01-160 (October 25, 2001).

• In appeals, litigation tax should be collected by the clerk of the court in which the notice of appeal, application for appeal, or petition for review is filed.  Opinion No 01-131 (August 20, 2001).

• A juvenile court cannot order the Department of Children’s Services to detain or otherwise securely hold a child currently in the Department’s custody as a dependent and neglected, unruly or delinquent child, without a preliminary hearing and finding of probable cause. A juvenile court has no authority to tax the cost of pre-adjudicatory detention to the Department of Children’s Services.  Opinion No. 01-130 (August 20, 2001).

• In a county moving from Class 6 to Class 5 as a result of the 2000 Census, the new salary of the general sessions court judge is the base salary of a Class 5 judge plus cost-of-living increases under T.C.A. 16-15-5003(f).  To this sum is added the increase the judge actually received on September 1, 1998 and applicable jurisdictional supplements for Class 5.  To this sum should be added cost-of-living increases under T.C.A. § 16-15-5003(i)(3).  Opinion No. 01-122 (August 7, 2001).

• Whether a general sessions court judge may also act as juvenile center administrator depends on the status and responsibilities of each position. If the judge has juvenile jurisdiction and the juvenile center is a detention facility or otherwise has responsibilities for juvenile offenders, serving in both capacities would create a conflict of interest.  The two positions also could be incompatible or holding both could be unconstitutional.  Opinion No. 01-116 (July 20, 2001).

• The calculation of the compensation of general sessions court judges under T.C.A. § 16-15-5003 is not unconstitutional even though it provides for different compensation for judges within the same population classification, because there is a rational basis for the differences.  As interpreted, the statute is internally consistent.  Opinion No. 01-110 (July 6, 2001).

• In a county that is newly classified after the 2000 Census as Class 1 for purposes of calculating the salary of the general sessions court judge, the salary is calculated by beginning with a base of $70,000, adding cost of living increases payable under 16-15-5003(f) to July 30, 1998,  then adding the lesser of $10,000 or 20% of the amount the judge was actually receiving as of August 31, 1998, and then adding cost of living adjustments pursuant to T.C.A. § 16-15-5003(i)(3) to the present.  Opinion No. 01-109 (July 6, 2001).

• In calculating the salary of general sessions court judges in counties which have changed population classifications, the salary adjustment which judges received on September 1, 1998 (20% or $10,000, whichever is less) is to be calculated based on the population classification that the county was in on September 1, 1998, and not on the classification after the 2000 Census.  Opinion No. 01-108 (June 29, 2001).

• In a county that is newly classified after the 2000 Census as Class 1 for purposes of calculating the salary of the general sessions court judge, the judge is not entitled to any supplements for additional jurisdiction.  Opinion No. 01-107 (June 29, 2001).

• A circuit, probate or other court of competent jurisdiction may grant a name change to a non-U. S. citizen who is a resident of the county in which the court sits, as long as that person complies with Tennessee law and the change is not done for any fraudulent purposes.  Opinion No. 01-104 (June 27, 2001).

• The procedure for recovery of personal property in possession of another as set out in T.C.A. § 29-30-101 et seq., requires that immediate pre-trial writs of possession be issued only by a judge.  Therefore, clerks of general sessions courts and circuit courts are not authorized under T.C.A. § 18-4-203 to issue immediate, pre-trial writs of possession in such cases.  Opinion No. 01-094 (June 7, 2001).

• Jurors’ meal expenses in civil cases may not be assessed as discretionary costs by the trial court.  Opinion No. 01-082 (May 18, 2001).

• An appeal of a conviction in general sessions courts is reviewed de novo in circuit court, as is an appeal of a revocation of probation. A circuit court judgment entered after appeal will be enforced by the circuit court.  Opinion No. 01-079 (May 8, 2001).

• The circuit court clerk or other appropriate official may accept payment for litigation taxes, fines, court costs, and other fees in one criminal case if the litigation taxes in other cases against the same criminal defendant have not been paid.  The clerk cannot require a criminal defendant to pay all of the litigation taxes he owes in several different cases before he is allowed to pay the fines, costs and fees in one particular case.  Opinion No. 01-056 (April 11, 2001).

• The Tennessee Supreme Court has the authority to require general sessions courts to collect and report statistical and other data to the Administrative Office of the Courts concerning driving while intoxicated cases, and also may require such courts to make the information available to the Department of Safety or any other agency or department of state government.  Opinion No. 01-054 (April 9, 2001).

• A general sessions court judge cannot allow a defendant to deposit a reduced cash bond with the court in lieu of the full amount of the bail.  Opinion No. 01-043 (March 26, 2001).

• The general sessions court has jurisdiction to order the 60 to 90 day evaluation required under T.C.A. § 33-7-303 following a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity, but only in misdemeanor cases where the defendant waives in writing an indictment, presentment, grand jury investigation, and jury trial and the district attorney does not object.  Opinion No. 01-041 (March 19, 2001).

• Orders of protection are available under T.C.A. §§ 36-3-602 and -605 to any individual who has suffered, or who is at risk of suffering, domestic abuse, subject only to the relationship limitations of T.C.A. 36-3-601(9) and a court’s determination of good cause.  Opinion No. 01-033 (March 12, 2001).

• A general sessions judge in a Class 1 county, who took office after the repeal in 1993 of the statute which provided for salary supplements in Class 1 counties, is not entitled to those supplements.  This opinion discusses the proper calculation of the salary of the Hamblen County general sessions judge, who took office in 1996 to fill the remainder of his predecessor’s term, and was re-elected in 1998 to a full eight-year term.  Opinion No. 01-029 (March 5, 2001).

• Juvenile Courts are not subject to the Parenting Plan Act in any matter before the juvenile court pursuant to its original jurisdiction, nor in any matter subject to the concurrent jurisdiction of the juvenile court.  Opinion No. 01-028 (February 27, 2001).

• Judicial commissioners, magistrates, and other officials with the authority to issue an arrest warrant may not conduct hearings for orders of protection pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-3-605(b) or issue  extended orders of protection.  The authority of judicial commissioners, magistrates, and other officials with the authority to issue an arrest warrant is limited to the issuance of an ex parte order of protection when a judge with statutory jurisdiction is not available.  Opinion No. 01-027 (February 27, 2001).

• In a county moving from Class 2 to Class 1 as a result of the 2000 census (Hawkins County), the salary of the general sessions judge is calculated by beginning with a base of $70,000 and adding all cost of living adjustments from July 1, 1990 to July 1, 1998, then adding the one time increase effective September 1, 1998, then adding the cost of living adjustments for July 1, 1999 and July 1, 2000.  The judge is not entitled to any supplements under general law, or under any applicable private act.  Opinion No. 01-024 (February 15, 2001).