Office Of ReseaRch and educatiOn accOuntability
fy 2018-19 tennessee Judicial
W
eighted caselOad study update
apRil 2020
Justin p. WilsOn
Comptroller of the Treasury
Juan napOles
Legislative Research Analyst
2
Key points
State law requires the Comptroller of the Treasury to update the judicial weighted caseload study annually
to compare the state’s existing judicial resources with an estimate of the judicial resources needed. is
update provides estimates based on cases led in scal year (FY) 2019.
e state has an estimated net decit of 8.53 judges based on FY 2019 data. e weighted caseload
update for FY 2018 showed a net decit of 6.51 full-time equivalent (FTE) judges. Overall, FY 2019
lings increased from FY 2018 by 520 cases (0.26 percent).
e FY 2019 update includes yearly data for examining the trends in each of the state’s judicial districts.
(See Exhibit 3 and Appendix C.) In addition, this update includes the identication and resolution of
several multi-year reporting problems. (See pages 3-4 for more information.) e FY 2019 update also
describes the distribution of Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA) appeals in the rst year after
Public Chapter 1021 (2018) allowed these cases to be heard outside of Davidson County. Initial evidence
shows a disproportionate number of UAPA appeals were heard in Davidson County despite the change in
law. (See page ten for more details.)
e estimated number of FTE judges that courts need is calculated by multiplying the total number of
case lings by case weights (average minutes per case for each type of case) and dividing that number
by the judges’ annual availability for case-specic work. e weighted caseload model can approximate
judicial workload and the need for judicial resources, but it has limitations. Factors such as trial court
clerks’ reporting processes, availability of judicial support sta, and local legal practices also aect judicial
resources. Furthermore, the passage of new laws, technological changes, population shifts, and other
factors may make weighted caseload studies less reliable with time unless the model is periodically revised.
Yearly trend in judicial resources (full-time equivalent judges)
Fiscal years FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17
(b)
FY18
(c)
FY19
Total judicial resources 152 152 152 153 153 156 156
Estimated judicial resources needed 157.13 154.73 151.22 157.22 159.31 162.51 164.53
Net excess or decit in judicial
resources
(a)
-5.13 -2.73 0.78 -4.22 -6.31 -6.51 -8.53
Note: (a) Workers’ compensation cases are included in judge demand estimates after FY 2016, but were excluded from demand estimates for scal years
2013 through 2016. (b) FY 2016-17 Tennessee Judicial Weighted Caseload Study Update, published in February 2018, used a three-year growth average
to estimate Shelby County’s FY 2017 criminal case lings because criminal case data for the county was unavailable at that time. FY 2016 data was used to
estimate recovery court gures for Judicial District 14 in FY 2017. In addition, Judicial District 15 became a prison district in January 2016, but it was not
reected in the weight assigned to its Other Petitions, Motions, and Writs case type for FY 2016 and FY 2017. e gures for FY 2017 have been revised
to reect updated data for these areas. (c) Judicial Districts 16, 19, and 21 were each assigned one additional judge in September 2018. ey were included
in the model for FY 2018 when determining the net demand in judicial resources. Without accounting for the judges added in early FY 2019, the decit in
FTE judges would have been 9.51 in FY 2018.
Source: Calculations by Oce of Research and Education Accountability based on data provided by the Administrative Oce of the Courts.
3
Introduction and background
e 1997 appropriations bill passed by the General Assembly required the Comptroller’s Oce to conduct a
judicial weighted caseload study to provide policymakers an objective means to determine the need for judicial
resources.
1
e Comptroller’s Oce contracted with the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) in 1998 to
conduct a time-series study to determine the case weights that are used to calculate judicial workload and the
number of full-time equivalent judges (FTE judges) needed by each judicial district. To account for changing
laws and practices, the Comptroller’s Oce contracted with the NCSC in 2007 and 2013 to develop a revised
weighted caseload model for Tennessee’s general jurisdiction trial judges based on a new time study and case
lings.
2
Regular updates are designed to produce a more current and accurate gauge of the need for judicial
resources throughout the state.
3
Tennessee Code Annotated (TCA) 16-2-513 requires the Comptroller of the Treasury to update the judicial
weighted caseload study annually to assess the need for judicial resources, or FTE judges. is update provides
estimates of judicial resources needed based on cases led in scal year (FY) 2019 using the 2013 weighted
caseload model.
e estimated number of FTE judges that courts need is calculated by multiplying the total number of case
lings by case weights (average minutes per case for each type of case) and dividing that number by the judges’
annual availability for case-specic work.
4
e weighted caseload model can approximate judicial workload and the need for judicial resources, but it has
limitations. Factors such as trial court clerks’ reporting processes, the availability of judicial support sta, and
local legal practices also aect judicial resources. Furthermore, the passage of new laws, technological changes,
population shifts, and other factors that occur after case weight calculations may make weighted caseload
studies less reliable with time unless the model is periodically revised.
Analysis and conclusions
Changes and considerations for FY 2019 update
Due to changes in state law, workers’ compensation cases are no longer led in state courts for injuries
incurred on or after July 1, 2014. As of FY 2017, workers’ compensation cases are, however, included in
the lings count used to estimate judicial need based on a June 2017 decision by the Tennessee Judicial
Conference. According to the Administrative Oce of the Courts (AOC), the reason the Judicial Conference
decided to again include workers’ compensation cases is because state trial court judges are still hearing cases
led prior to July 1, 2014; the number of workers’ compensation cases heard in state courts have not decreased
at the rate that was predicted, and the judges wished to receive credit for the time spent hearing these cases.
e Judicial Conference’s decision allows judges to receive credit for the time spent on such cases.
Judicial Districts 16, 19, and 21 each were assigned an additional judge as of September 1, 2018.
A,5
ose
judges are included in the assessment of judicial need for FY 2019. Also eective as of September 1, 2018,
Dickson County transferred all unnished and pending probate cases from its county-level probate and
juvenile courts to its chancery court pursuant to Private Chapter 43 (2018). is transfer of probate cases
increased the demand for judicial resources in JD 23 (Cheatham, Dickson, Houston, Humphreys, and Stewart
Counties) by 0.09 FTE judges, about half of which was accounted for by probate cases led in FY 2019.
A
Judicial District 16 encompasses Cannon and Rutherford counties. Judicial District 19 comprises Montgomery and Robertson Counties. Judicial District 21
comprises Hickman, Lewis, Perry, and Williamson Counties.
4
e FY 2019 update also includes treatment court cases from the 22nd Judicial District Recovery Court
(Giles, Lawrence, Maury, and Wayne Counties), which began accepting participants at the end of FY 2018,
and the 1st Judicial District Recovery Court (Carter, Johnson, Unicoi, and Washington Counties), which
started accepting participants in March 2018. In addition, the FY 2019 update includes trial court cases
for the Hamilton County Mental Health Court, which began hearing treatment cases in criminal court in
FY 2016. e estimate of judicial need for JD 11 (Hamilton County) was slightly underestimated in the
updates between FY 2016 to FY 2018. e addition of the Hamilton County Mental Health Court’s caseload
increased the judicial need for JD 11 by 0.15 FTE judges in FY 2019.
e FY 2019 estimates also account for the correction of discrepancies in data reporting. Data for the Other
Petitions, Motions, and Writs (OPMW) case type were not reported by Rutherford County to the AOC until
FY 2019. e absence of this data resulted in a slight underestimation of judicial need for JD 16 (Cannon and
Rutherford Counties) in past weighted caseload estimates. Compared to the FY 2018 update, the contribution
of OPMW case types to the judicial need of JD 16 increased by about 0.07 FTE judges.
Due to a clerical error in Trenton Criminal Court, JD 28 (Crockett, Gibson, and Haywood Counties)
overreported OPMW case types in FY 2017. For FY 2018 and FY 2019, Trenton Criminal Court routinely
miscategorized OPMW case types as probation violations. Probation violations have a case weight of 10
minutes less than OPMW case types, so the judicial need in JD 28 was slightly underestimated for FY 2018
and FY 2019.
Between FY 2014 and FY 2018, Putnam County did not report cases for which a grand jury returned a true
bill (i.e., a written decision from the grand jury that the prosecution provided sucient evidence to proceed
with an indictment). In FY 2019, Putnam County began reporting these cases again. Putnam’s 342 true billed
cases increased the judicial need in JD 13 (Clay, Cumberland, DeKalb, Overton, Pickett, Putnam, and White
Counties) by 0.17 FTE judges in FY 2019.
Case lings
In FY 2019, 203,418 cases were led in Tennessee’s state trial courts. Criminal cases accounted for approximately
46 percent of all cases, followed by domestic relations cases at 29 percent, and civil cases at 25 percent.
Overall, lings increased from FY 2018 by 520 cases (0.26 percent). e number of criminal cases increased
by 1.37 percent, civil cases increased by 2.74 percent, and domestic relations cases decreased by 3.53 percent.
Looking at all case types, the largest change in the number of case lings from the prior year was seen for the
Felony A & B case type, which increased by 1,129 case lings.
As compared to FY 2018, other noticeable changes in lings by case type were:
• Orders of Protection lings decreased (-854)
• Probate/Trust lings increased (+585)
• Felony (C, D, & E) lings increased (+582)
• Contract/Debt/Specic Performance lings increased (+531)
• Misdemeanor lings increased (+518)
5
Exhibit 1: Changes in Trial Court Case Filings by Case Type, FY 2015 to FY 2019
Case Type FY15 FY16 FY17
(c)
FY18 FY19
Change
from
FY18
Percent
change from
FY18
Criminal 85,847 90,121 87,549 92,430 93,695 1,265 1.37%
First Degree Murder 675 662 660 783 824 41 5.24%
Post Conviction Relief 486 481 513 452 371 -81 -17.92%
Felony A & B 6,913 7,470 8,132 9,369 10,498 1,129 12.05%
Felony (C, D, & E) 31,063 32,509 29,737 28,586 29,168 582 2.04%
DUI 3,321 3,483 3,002 2,933 2,844 -89 -3.03%
Recovery (Drug) Court
(a)
1,103 1,275 1,334 1,335 1,361 26 1.95%
Criminal Appeals (including Juvenile
Delinquency)
297 392 300 302 234 -68 -22.52%
Misdemeanor 9,367 9,939 9,943 10,140 10,658 518 5.11%
Other Petitions, Motions, Writs 1,806 2,236 2,467 3,217 3,189 -28 -0.87%
Other Petitions, Motions, Writs-
Prison Districts
2,804 2,771 2,253 3,023 2,695 -328 -10.85%
Probation Violation 28,012 28,903 29,208 32,290 31,853 -437 -1.35%
Civil 53,271 51,641 50,687 50,242 51,621 1,379 2.74%
Administrative Hearings 420 373 470 533 469 -64 -12.01%
Contract/Debt/Specific Performance 5,413 5,527 5,190 4,814 5,345 531 11.03%
Damages/Tort 9,777 10,342 11,071 11,081 10,970 -111 -1.00%
Guardianship/Conservatorship 2,263 2,500 2,845 2,958 3,047 89 3.01%
Judicial Hospitalization 659 717 816 785 974 189 24.08%
Juvenile Court Appeal (Civil) 195 239 233 184 194 10 5.43%
Medical Malpractice 356 391 432 417 422 5 1.20%
Probate/Trust 13,820 14,250 14,337 14,819 15,404 585 3.95%
Other General Civil 12,307 12,556 12,214 11,999 12,321 322 2.68%
Real Estate 1,487 1,634 1,870 1,895 2,077 182 9.60%
Workers Compensation
(b)
6,574 3,112 1,209 757 398 -359 -47.42%
Domestic Relations 62,940 62,745 62,544 60,226 58,102 -2,124 -3.53%
Child Support 11,409 11,070 11,002 10,737 10,351 -386 -3.60%
Divorce with Children 11,997 12,160 11,709 11,400 11,022 -378 -3.32%
Divorce without Children 16,118 16,285 16,016 15,459 15,372
-87
-0.56%
Residential Parenting 2,046 2,123 2,058 2,380 2,197 183 -7.69%
Protection of Children 3,923 4,020 4,247 4,214 4,128 -86 -2.04%
Orders of Protection 8,105 8,356 9,201 9,527 8,673 -854 -8.96%
Contempt 7,786 7,409 7,259 5,522 5,380 -142 -2.57%
Other Domestic Relations 1,556 1,322 1,052 987 979 -8 -0.81%
Total Filings 202,058 204,507 200,780 202,898 203,418 520 0.26%
Notes: (a) Workload is based on the FY 2019 capacity or average daily population of the treatment courts.
(b) Workers’ compensation cases are included in judge demand estimates after FY 2016, but were excluded from demand estimates for fiscal
years 2015 and 2016.
(c) The figures for FY 2017 were updated in 2018 with new data on Shelby County criminal case filings, recovery court capacity figures for
Judicial District 14, and the reclassification of Judicial District 15 as a prison district for Other Petition, Motions, and Writs case types.
Source: Calculations by the Office of Research and Education Accountability based on data provided by the AOC.
6
Full-Time Equivalent Judges
Based on FY 2019 case ling and judicial workload data, the state has an estimated net decit of 8.53
FTE judges. (See Exhibit 2.) e weighted caseload update for FY 2018 and the update for FY 2017 showed
estimated net decits of 6.51 FTE judges and 6.31 FTE judges, respectively.
e inclusion of workers’ compensation cases in the FY 2019 update is responsible for an estimated increase
in demand for judicial resources of 0.21 FTE judges across the state. is means that the estimated statewide
FTE net decit of judicial resources is only slightly larger than it would have been without the inclusion of the
workers’ compensation cases.
B
e General Assembly created three new state trial court judges – one each for Judicial Districts 16, 19, and
21 – who took oce in September 2018.
C
Without the addition of those judges, the estimated net decit in
judicial resources would have been 11.53 FTE judges.
Exhibit 3 illustrates the estimated decit or excess of FTE judges for FY 2019.
6,7
For FY 2019, four districts show an estimated need of one or more FTE judges:
• District 19 (Montgomery and Robertson Counties) shows a need for 2.00 FTE judges in FY 2019, the
highest estimated need of any district. In FY 2018 and FY 2017, the district showed a need for 1.23
FTE judges and 2.32 FTE judges, respectively. In FY 2015, the General Assembly created a new circuit
court judgeship for the district.
8
In September of 2018, the General Assembly added another judge to
the circuit court. Since FY 2018, the district has shown a total increase of 353 cases. e case types that
consumed the most judicial resources in terms of annual case-specic hours are Divorce with Children
(1,521), Felony A & B (1,277), and Damages/Tort (977). Compared to FY 2018, the case types that
grew the most in terms of annual case-specic hours of judicial resources were Felony A & B (343) and
First Degree Murder (297).
B
Due to changes in state law, workers’ compensation cases are no longer led in state courts for injuries incurred on or after July 1, 2014. As of FY 2017, workers’
compensation cases are, however, included in the lings count used to estimate judicial need based on a June 2017 decision by the Tennessee Judicial Conference.
According to the Administrative Oce of the Courts (AOC), the reason the Judicial Conference decided to again include workers’ compensation cases is because
state trial court judges are still hearing cases led prior to July 1, 2014; the number of workers’ compensation cases heard in state courts have not decreased at the rate
that was predicted, and the judges wished to receive credit for the time spent hearing these cases. e Judicial Conference’s decision allows judges to receive credit for
the time spent on such cases.
C
Judicial District 16 encompasses Cannon and Rutherford Counties. Judicial District 19 comprises Montgomery and Robertson Counties. Judicial District 21
comprises Hickman, Lewis, Perry, and Williamson Counties.
Exhibit 2: Yearly Trend in Number of Judicial Resources (FTE Judges)
Fiscal Years FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17
(b)
FY18
(c)
FY19
Total Judicial Resources 152 152 153 153 156 156
Estimated Judicial
Resources Needed
154.73 151.22 157.22 159.31 162.51 164.53
Net Excess or Deficit in
Judicial Resources
(a)
-2.73 0.78 -4.22 -6.31 -6.51 -8.53
Notes: (a) Workers’ compensation cases are included in judge demand estimates after FY 2016, but were excluded from demand estimates for fiscal years 2014,
2015, and 2016.
(b) FY 2016-17 Tennessee Judicial Weighted Caseload Study Update, published in February 2018, used a three-year growth average to estimate Shelby County’s
FY 2017 criminal case filings because criminal case data for the county was unavailable at that time. FY 2016 data was used to estimate recovery court figures for
Judicial District 14 in FY 2017. In addition, Judicial District 15 became a prison district in January 2016, but this was not reflected in the weight assigned to its
Other Petitions, Motions, and Writs case type for FY 2016 and FY 2017. The figures for FY 2017 have been revised to reflect updated data for these areas.
(c) Judicial Districts 16, 19, and 21 were each assigned one additional judge in September 2018. They were included in the model for FY 2018 when determining
the net demand in judicial resources. Without accounting for the judges added in early FY 2019, the deficit in FTE judges would have been 9.51 in FY 2018.
(See Appendix C for complete FY 2019 Weighted Caseload figures.)
Source: Estimates derived from model developed by the NCSC and updated with filings data provided by the AOC
7
Exhibit 3: Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Judges Decit/Excess by Judicial District, FY 2019
Source: Estimates derived from model developed by the NCSC and updated with lings data provided by the AOC.
• District 30 (Shelby County) shows a net decit of 1.43 FTE judges for FY 2019. In FY 2018, Shelby
County had a surplus of 0.51 FTE judges. ese estimates demonstrate an increase in demand of 1.94
FTE judges from FY 2018 to FY 2019. e district saw a total increase in cases of 2,137. One factor
that may inuence the number of reported lings is that Shelby County switched case management
systems in 2016. For two years afterward, Shelby County had problems reporting data to the AOC. In
FY 2019, the case types that consumed the most annual case-specic hours of judges’ time were Felony
A & B (6,534), Damages/Tort (5,425), and Felony C, D, & E (4,439). e case types that grew the
most in terms of annual case-specic hours were Felony A & B (2,067), Felony C, D, & E (722), and
First Degree Murder (440). e growth in Felony A & B cases in Shelby County accounted for 70
percent of the growth in Felony A & B cases across the state.
• District 13 (Clay, Cumberland, DeKalb, Overton, Pickett, Putnam, and White Counties) shows a net
decit of 1.30 FTE judges for FY 2019. is decit is larger by 0.37 FTE judges than the estimate for
FY 2018. e case types that consumed the most annual case-specic hours for judges were Felony A &
B (890), Real Estate (777), and Felony C, D, & E (748). Real Estate (173), Medical Malpractice (110),
and Misdemeanor (96) cases saw the most growth compared to last year.
8
• District 22 (Giles, Lawrence, Maury, and Wayne Counties) was estimated to have a net decit of 1.16
FTE judges in FY 2019. In FY 2018, JD 22 exhibited a net decit of 1.23 FTE judges. e case types
that consumed the most annual case-specic hours for judges were Felony A & B (1,141), Felony C,
D, & E (644), and Divorce with Children (620). e case types that grew the most were First Degree
Murder (143) and Recovery Court (84) cases.
Other notable changes in judge demand in FY 2019 as compared to FY 2018:
• District 20 (Davidson County) exhibited a surplus of 0.30 FTE judges in FY 2019. is represented
a net change of over one FTE judge compared to FY 2018 when JD 20 saw a net decit of 0.78 FTE
judges. Davidson County saw a decrease in hours spent on Medical Malpractice (-352), Administrative
Hearing (-224), and Orders of Protection (-117) cases. Part of the decrease in estimated time spent on
Administrative Hearing cases may be attributed to the passage of Public Chapter 1021 (2018), explained
in more detail on page ten.
OREA also looked at the estimated need for judicial districts based on the average judicial demand over
the past three scal years. (See Appendix D for a graphical representation of the estimated decit or excess
FTE judges based on the average judicial demand from FY 2017 to FY 2019). Under that analysis, Judicial
Districts 13, 19, and 22 continued to show an estimated need of one or more FTE judges. In addition,
Judicial District 23 (Cheatham, Dickson, Houston, Humphreys, and Stewart Counties) showed an estimated
need of one FTE judge. Using the average judicial demand in Shelby County over the past three years, Judicial
District 30 showed a surplus in judicial resources. See Exhibit 4 to view the estimated decit or excess of FTE
judges by district over time.
Exhibit 4: Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Judges Decit/Excess by Judicial District,
FY 2014 – FY 2019
Judicial Districts (Counties) FY14
(a)
FY15
(a)
FY16
(a)
FY17
(b)
FY18
(c)
FY19
(c)
District 1 (Carter, Johnson, Unicoi, and
Washington)
-0.32 0.23 0.19 -0.16 -0.36 -0.81
District 2 (Sullivan) 0.37 0.31 0.16 0.26 0.20 0.04
District 3 (Greene, Hamblen, Hancock, and
Hawkins)
0.28 0.25 -0.06 0.43 0.09 0.37
District 4 (Cocke, Grainger, Jefferson, and Sevier) -0.89 -0.54 -0.83 -0.93 -0.68 -0.62
District 5 (Blount) 0.01 0.06 -0.10 0.02 -0.04 -0.04
District 6 (Knox) 0.11 0.43 -0.27 -0.36 -0.24 -0.67
District 7 (Anderson) -0.18 0.23 0.22 0.29 0.20 0.06
District 8 (Campbell, Claiborne, Fentress, Scott,
and Union)
-0.08 -0.11 -0.44 -0.32 -0.34 -0.14
District 9 (Loudon, Meigs, Morgan, and Roane) 0.80 0.85 0.80 0.41 0.31 0.11
District 10 (Bradley, McMinn, Monroe, and Polk) -0.42 -0.13 -0.12 -0.31 -0.17 0.06
District 11 (Hamilton) 0.32 0.08 0.23 -0.28 -0.03 -0.38
9
Judicial Districts (Counties) FY14
(a)
FY15
(a)
FY16
(a)
FY17
(b)
FY18
(c)
FY19
(c)
District 12 (Bledsoe, Franklin, Grundy, Marion,
Rhea, and Sequatchie)
-0.73 -0.47 -0.44 -0.67 -0.77 -0.67
District 13 (Clay, Cumberland, DeKalb, Overton,
Pickett, Putnam, and White)
-0.58 -0.55 -1.63 -0.98 -0.93 -1.30
District 14 (Coffee) 0.82 0.77 0.43 0.36 0.14 0.26
District 15 (Jackson, Macon, Smith, Trousdale, and
Wilson)
0.10 0.37 0.04 -0.30 -0.01 -0.21
District 16 (Cannon and Rutherford) -1.17 -1.17 -1.42 -1.53 -0.25 -0.19
District 17 (Bedford, Lincoln, Marshall, and Moore) 0.52 0.43 0.22 0.40 0.27 0.28
District 18 (Sumner) -0.46 -0.63 -0.45 -0.35 -0.49 -0.52
District 19 (Montgomery and Robertson) -2.89 -2.77 -1.89 -2.32 -1.23 -2.00
District 20 (Davidson) 0.79 1.07 1.11 -0.15 -0.78 0.30
District 21 (Hickman, Lewis, Perry, and Williamson) -0.41 -0.24 -0.58 -1.00 0.26 0.47
District 22 (Giles, Lawrence, Maury, and Wayne) -1.05 -0.76 -0.42 -0.92 -1.23 -1.16
District 23 (Cheatham, Dickson, Houston,
Humphreys, and Stewart)
-0.71 -0.64 -1.18 -0.73 -1.52 -0.96
District 24 (Benton, Carroll, Decatur, Hardin, and
Henry)
0.92 0.95 0.87 0.75 0.46 0.35
District 25 (Fayette, Hardeman, Lauderdale,
McNairy, and Tipton)
-0.08 0.18 0.38 0.03 -0.14 -0.28
District 26 (Chester, Henderson, and Madison) -0.01 0.14 0.52 0.33 0.35 -0.26
District 27 (Obion and Weakley) 0.45 0.59 0.42 0.32 0.28 0.50
District 28 (Crockett, Gibson, and Haywood) 0.44 0.57 0.58 0.24 0.02 0.46
District 29 (Dyer and Lake) 0.36 0.24 0.18 0.12 0.10 0.16
District 30 (Shelby) 1.25 1.37 -0.21 1.54 0.51 -1.43
District 31 (Van Buren and Warren) -0.27 -0.32 -0.52 -0.51 -0.51 -0.30
Statewide Excess or Deficit FTE Judges -2.73 0.78 -4.22 -6.31 -6.51 -8.53
Note: (a) Workers’ Compensation cases are included in judge demand estimates after FY 2016, but were excluded from demand estimates for fiscal years 2014,
2015, and 2016.
(b) FY 2016-17 Tennessee Judicial Weighted Caseload Study Update, published in February 2018, used a three-year growth average to estimate Shelby County’s
FY 2017 criminal case filings because criminal case data for the county was unavailable at that time. FY 2016 data was used to estimate recovery court figures for
Judicial District 14 in FY 2017. In addition, Judicial District 15 became a prison district in January 2016, but this was not reflected in the weight assigned to its
Other Petitions, Motions, and Writs case type for FY 2016 and FY 2017. The figures for FY 2017 have been revised to reflect updated data for these areas.
(c) Judicial Districts 16, 19, and 21 were each assigned one more judge in September 2018. They were included in the models for FY 2018 and FY 2019 when
determining the net demand in judicial resources. Without accounting for the judges added in early FY 2019, the demand for FTE judges would have increased
by one judge in the three respective districts and by three judges overall in FY 2018. (See Appendix C for complete FY 2019 Weighted Caseload figures.)
Source: Estimates derived from model developed by the NCSC and updated with filings data provided by the AOC.
10
Change to administrative hearing case types
Pursuant to Public Chapter 1021 (2018), appeals of Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (UAPA) cases,
a time-intensive subset of Administrative Hearing cases, may now be led “in the chancery court nearest to
the place of residence of the person contesting the agency action or alternatively, at the person’s discretion, in
the chancery court nearest to the place where the cause of action arose, or in the chancery court of Davidson
County.” Prior to the new law’s eective date of July 1, 2018, Judicial District 20 (Davidson County) was the
statutorily mandated jurisdiction for hearing most UAPA appeals, and administrative hearings for the district
were assigned a case weight of 496 minutes while the administrative hearing case weight for all other districts
was 204 minutes.
In response to Public Chapter 1021, the Tennessee Judicial Conference recommended making 318 minutes
the case weight for Administrative Hearing case type lings for all of the state’s judicial districts beginning
with the FY 2018 update.
e Comptroller’s Oce has updated the FY 2019 judicial weighted caseload study under both scenarios:
(1) the split case weight of 496 minutes for Administrative Hearing case type lings for Judicial District 20
and 204 minutes for such case type lings in all other judicial districts, and (2) a uniform case weight of 318
minutes for Administrative Hearing case type lings for all districts, as recommended by the Tennessee Judicial
Conference. e judicial demand for JD 20 is reduced by 0.43 FTE judges under scenario 2 as compared to
scenario 1, the scenario used in the body of this report. (See Appendix E to see changes to FTE judge demand
using a uniform weight for administrative hearing case types.)
After the end of FY 2019, OREA sent a survey to the clerk and masters in all of Tennessee’s 95 counties to
help gauge the redistributive eect of PC 1021 on UAPA appeals. Sixty-six counties responded, including the
eight most populous counties. Of the reported UAPA appeals for FY 2019, two-thirds were led in Davidson
County. (See Exhibit 5.) Although the new statute may have contributed to a reduction in the number of
Administrative Hearings in Davidson County, UAPA appeals still made up about 30 percent of Davidson
County’s Administrative Hearing case type lings. is evidence demonstrates that a disproportionate number
of UAPA appeals were heard in Davidson County in FY 2019 even though it was no longer the statutorily
mandated venue.
e Comptroller’s Oce will continue to analyze the extent to which UAPA appeals are redistributed across
the state in the FY 2020 update.
Exhibit 5: Distribution of Reported UAPA Appeals by County
Source: OREA survey of chancery courts, 2019.
Note: 67 out of 96 chancery courts responded to the survey. Since Gibson County has two chancery courts, both of which responded to the survey, 66 out of 95
counties are represented in the data.
16%
67%
8%
9%
Shelby County (JD 30) Davidson County (JD 20) Knox County (JD 6) All other counties
16%
67%
8%
9%
Shelby County (JD 30) Davidson County (JD 20) Knox County (JD 6) All other counties
11
Future considerations regarding a new time-series study
Time studies are based on surveys of selected court
sta – judges, district attorneys, or public defenders
– and determine the average time typically spent on
each type of case. For example, a felony case typically
requires signicantly more time to process than a trac
case. Periodically updating the case weights assigned to
dierent types of cases is necessary so that developments
that aect the time needed to process cases – such as
new laws, technological changes, population shifts,
redistricting, and other factors – are taken into account.
e consultants with NCSC suggest updating case
weights by conducting a new time study every ve
to seven years to improve the reliability of estimates.
Eective September 1, 2022, Public Chapter 530 (2020)
creates a new judicial district by splitting Judicial District
21 into two districts. e creation of a new judicial
district and the associated redistricting actions should
be factored into any possible new study of the amount
of time selected court sta – judges, district attorneys,
public defenders – typically spend on each type of case.
Recommendation to Split Judicial District
21 into Two Separate Districts
Public Chapter 974 (2018) empowered Speaker of the
House Beth Harwell and Speaker of the Senate Randy
McNally to create an Advisory Task Force on the
Composition of Judicial Districts. This 11-member task
force, chaired by Chancellor Forgety, was charged
with reviewing the composition of Tennessee’s judicial
districts and proposing a redistricting plan that would
provide Tennesseans reasonable and timely access to
trial courts.
Over the course of several meetings stretching from
October 2018 to November 2019, including ve
public hearings throughout the state, the task force
deliberated over the need, local support, and impact
of several redistricting options. These discussions
culminated with the task force recommending the
separation of Judicial District 21 into two districts: one
for Williamson County alone and the other district for
Hickman, Lewis, and Perry Counties.
12
Endnotes
1
Public Acts, 1997, Chapter No. 552, Section 12, Item 35.
2
National Center for State Courts, Tennessee Trial Courts, Judicial Weighted Caseload Study, 2013, https://
www.comptroller.tn.gov/content/dam/cot/orea/documents/orea-reports-2013/2013_OREA_WCTNTri-
alCtsJudWtCase.pdf. See study for a complete explanation of methodology and qualitative issues to consider.
3
See Appendix A for a brief description of the design of the 2013 Tennessee Trial Courts Judicial Weighted
Caseload Model.
4
National Center for State Courts, Tennessee Trial Courts, Judicial Weighted Caseload Study, 2013, https://
www.comptroller.tn.gov/content/dam/cot/orea/documents/orea-reports-2013/2013_OREA_WCTNTri-
alCtsJudWtCase.pdf. See the Preliminary Case Weights section on pages 5-6 of the study for a complete
explanation for creating the measure.
5
Public Acts, 2018, Chapter No. 974.
6
See Appendix B for a map of Tennessee Judicial Districts.
7
See Appendix C for the detailed calculations of judicial resource need statewide and by judicial district.
8
Public Acts, 2015, Chapter No. 437.
13
Appendix A: Design Notes on the 2013 Tennessee
Trial Courts Judicial Weighted Caseload Model
In 2013, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) worked with selected Tennessee trial court judges and
sta with the Administrative Oce of the Courts (AOC) and the Comptroller’s Oce to develop a revised
model to estimate the total judicial ocer demand based on cases led. Tennessee judges reported their time
for six weeks out of an 11-week period in the summer of 2013, which was used to determine the average time
spent on case-related and non-case-related activities statewide. Based on the 2013 time study, new case weights
were assigned to each case type, including a few newly added case types, in order to more accurately estimate
judicial need throughout the state.
D
D
A complete report describing the process and the 2013 revised model is available at https://www.comptroller.tn.gov/content/dam/cot/orea/documents/orea-
reports-2013/2013_OREA_WCTNTrialCtsJudWtCase.pdf.
14
Appendix B: Tennessee Judicial Districts
District 1 – Carter, Johnson, Unicoi, and Washington Counties
District 2 – Sullivan County
District 3 – Greene, Hamblen, Hancock, and Hawkins Counties
District 4 – Cocke, Grainger, Jeerson, and Sevier Counties
District 5 – Blount County
District 6 – Knox County
District 7 – Anderson County
District 8 – Campbell, Claiborne, Fentress, Scott, and Union Counties
District 9 – Loudon, Meigs, Morgan, and Roane Counties
District 10 – Bradley, McMinn, Monroe, and Polk Counties
District 11 – Hamilton County
District 12 – Bledsoe, Franklin, Grundy, Marion, Rhea, and Sequatchie Counties
District 13 – Clay, Cumberland, DeKalb, Overton, Pickett, Putnam, and White Counties
District 14 – Coee County
District 15 – Jackson, Macon, Smith, Trousdale, and Wilson Counties
District 16 – Cannon and Rutherford Counties
District 17 – Bedford, Lincoln, Marshall, and Moore Counties
District 18 – Sumner County
District 19 – Montgomery and Robertson Counties
District 20 – Davidson County
District 21 – Hickman, Lewis, Perry, and Williamson Counties
District 22 – Giles, Lawrence, Maury, and Wayne Counties
District 23 – Cheatham, Dickson, Houston, Humphreys, and Stewart Counties
District 24 – Benton, Carroll, Decatur, Hardin, and Henry Counties
District 25 – Fayette, Hardeman, Lauderdale, McNairy, and Tipton Counties
District 26 – Chester, Henderson, and Madison Counties
District 27 – Obion and Weakley Counties
District 28 – Crockett, Gibson, and Haywood Counties
District 29 – Dyer and Lake Counties
District 30 – Shelby County
District 31 – Van Buren and Warren Counties
Source: Administrative Oce of the Courts, 2006.
15
Case Filings per Judicial District
Case Type
Case
Weight
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Criminal
First Degree Murder 776 21 12 4 10 4 38 4 5 6 14
Post Conviction Relief 381 7 3 9 12 6 35 1 6 10 7
Felony A & B 157 230 221 209 308 55 518 86 110 215 207
Felony C, D, & E 45 1,215 1,001 689 1,156 422 1,350 313 714 601 851
DUI 89 56 27 77 176 30 88 33 72 42 48
Recovery (Drug) Court ** 167 25 25 50 103 30 40 65
Criminal Appeals (incl.
juvenile delinquency)
11 15 10 5 5 1 0 1 14 3 0
Misdemeanor 29 403 202 314 552 110 203 111 92 334 156
Other Petitions, Motions,
Writs
28 356 42 120 36 225 9 51 99
Other Petitions, Motions,
Writs-Prison Districts
57 14 28
Probation Violation 18 2,043 1,932 957 2,010 728 1,409 481 1,017 639 1,031
General Civil/Other
Administrative Hearings 204 7 0 17 9 0 11 5 19 9 17
Contract/Debt/Specific
Performance
104 748 107 98 241 63 354 36 114 82 113
Damages/Tort 135 240 194 138 360 136 879 132 134 154 308
Guardianship/
Conservatorship
70 84 100 76 26 20 499 20 47 50 81
Judicial Hospitalization 19 1 21 1 0 21 0 1 0 0 0
Juvenile Court Appeal (Civil) 287 5 1 9 15 6 35 4 0 2 0
Medical Malpractice 1320 14 10 2 2 1 48 11 4 2 6
Probate/Trust 24 734 583 725 194 4 1,443 340 376 314 514
Other General Civil 58 274 319 323 371 195 652 113 125 101 356
Real Estate 259 77 30 77 69 37 174 33 59 112 65
Workers Compensation 41 2 0 0 0 2 40 33 0 1 0
Domestic Relations
Child Support 20 307 199 1,083 633 255 600 758 320 295 369
Divorce with Children 106 396 270 383 401 200 742 136 237 67 467
Divorce without Children 40 594 416 567 586 225 1,124 181 292 101 656
Residential Parenting 108 78 87 122 64 35 163 27 13 13 71
Protection of Children
(paternity, adoption,
legitimation, surrender, TPR)
65 177 88 214 155 155 324 69 98 101 220
Orders of Protection 32 162 254 489 658 2 2,296 122 0 87 626
Contempt 14 245 118 210 123 90 418 41 13 127 271
Other Domestic Relations 73 39 7 24 12 9 83 0 6 18 32
Total Filings 8,213 6,593 6,864 8,318 2,951 13,751 3,131 3,978 3,514 6,650
Workload (Weights x Filings) 462,564 320,602 336,060 439,882 172,159 875,153 164,139 216,753 207,019 376,767
Appendix C: Tennessee Judicial Weighted Caseload
Update, FY 2019, Case Filings by Judicial District
16
Case Filings per Judicial District
Judge Year (210 days per
year, 8 hrs. per day)
100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800
Average District Travel per
year
4,830 3,465 11,907 6,111 42 2,373 0 15,393 12,789 8,148
Non-case Related Time (78
minutes/day)
16,380 16,380 16,380 16,380 16,380 16,380 16,380 16,380 16,380 16,380
Availability for Case-Specific
Work
79,590 80,955 72,513 78,309 84,378 82,047 84,420 69,027 71,631 76,272
# Judges 5 4 5 5 2 10 2 3 3 5
Total Judicial Officer 5.81 3.96 4.63 5.62 2.04 10.67 1.94 3.14 2.89 4.94
FTE Deficit or Excess -0.81 0.04 0.37 -0.62 -0.04 -0.67 0.06 -0.14 0.11 0.06
Criminal Judges Needed 2.11 1.82 1.44 2.46 0.83 2.81 0.61 1.32 1.34 1.64
Civil Judges Needed 2.40 1.22 1.36 1.64 0.60 4.70 0.76 1.07 1.12 1.58
Domestic Relations Judges
Needed
1.30 0.92 1.83 1.52 0.61 3.16 0.58 0.75 0.43 1.72
Child Support Referee No Yes Ye s Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Source: National Center for State Courts, 2013. Data on Filings provided by the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts.
* The 20th Judicial District ceased being the statutorily mandated jurisdiction for most appeals of UAPA Administrative Hearing in FY19. Nevertheless, an OREA survey
revealed that JD 20 continued to see a disproportionate amount of time-consuming UAPA appeals in FY19. In accordance with this fact and in keeping with Judicial Weighted
Caseload Updates since 2013, a case weight of 496 minutes is used in this district.
** Workload is based on the FY2019 capacity of the drug courts.
Case Filings per Judicial District
Case Type
Case
Weight
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20*
Criminal
First Degree Murder 776 66 6 10 6 14 26 3 9 50 127
Post Conviction Relief 381 12 4 4 9 10 18 25 7 17 59
Felony A & B 157 538 285 340 110 275 387 165 201 488 816
Felony C, D, & E 45 1,213 988 997 385 764 1,152 363 689 1,096 1,875
DUI 89 188 59 328 33 88 98 6 95 185 163
Recovery (Drug) Court ** 167 126 80 65 102 25 60 50 183
Criminal Appeals (incl.
juvenile delinquency)
11 45 2 1 1 4 4 1 14 19 45
Misdemeanor 29 604 277 1,089 112 839 444 48 165 588 652
Other Petitions, Motions,
Writs
28 22 40 42 258 306 368 640
Other Petitions, Motions,
Writs-Prison Districts
57 42 145 444
Probation Violation 18 1,354 1,147 1,440 489 936 1,240 191 695 1,000 3,087
17
Case Filings per Judicial District
General Civil/Other
Administrative Hearings 204 9 4 13 7 6 8 6 0 14 201
Contract/Debt/Specific
Performance
104 248 79 121 49 128 122 47 123 134 729
Damages/Tort 135 799 187 231 92 235 33 99 204 434 2,157
Guardianship/
Conservatorship
70 563 39 118 18 90 88 39 96 91 344
Judicial Hospitalization 19 268 4 9 0 4 268 1 0 0 336
Juvenile Court Appeal (Civil) 287 9 18 6 1 6 4 3 3 12 5
Medical Malpractice 1320 43 1 10 2 6 11 3 4 8 63
Probate/Trust 24 937 437 493 188 606 613 417 710 623 1,784
Other General Civil 58 635 209 229 139 251 1,325 210 315 715 1,253
Real Estate 259 143 61 180 8 41 34 33 18 74 339
Workers Compensation 41 24 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 129
Domestic Relations
Child Support 20 220 616 252 105 109 522 551 317 754 405
Divorce with Children 106 571 254 328 135 260 627 254 332 861 746
Divorce without Children 40 857 338 392 173 349 755 321 384 1,094 1,233
Residential Parenting 108 96 22 86 31 45 185 89 113 157 104
Protection of Children
(paternity, adoption,
legitimation, surrender, TPR)
65 261 75 180 32 136 250 87 147 208 145
Orders of Protection 32 1,042 162 3 1 39 693 32 122 3 1,068
Contempt 14 611 322 73 116 40 237 207 81 182 310
Other Domestic Relations 73 148 150 15 12 29 45 21 23 27 108
Total Filings 11,652 5,869 7,053 2,398 5,480 9,507 3,529 5,285 9,475 18,910
Workload (Weights x
Filings)
791,530 307,767 426,405 144,955 317,049 519,013 197,365 295,304 597,441 1,472,762
Judge Year (210 days per
year, 8 hrs. per day)
100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800
Average District Travel per
year
42 18,564 16,758 987 9,030 630 11,991 462 9,744 1,218
Non-case Related Time (78
minutes/day)
16,380 16,380 16,380 16,380 16,380 16,380 16,380 16,380 16,380 16,380
Availability for Case-
Specific Work
84,378 65,856 67,662 83,433 75,390 83,790 72,429 83,958 74,676 83,202
# Judges 9 4 5 2 4 6 3 3 6 18
Total Judicial Officer
Demand
9.38 4.67 6.30 1.74 4.21 6.19 2.72 3.52 8.00 17.70
FTE Deficit or Excess -0.38 -0.67 -1.30 0.26 -0.21 -0.19 0.28 -0.52 -2.00 0.30
Criminal Judges Needed 3.27 2.20 3.05 0.91 2.04 2.40 0.94 1.39 3.23 5.76
Civil Judges Needed 3.99 1.25 2.09 0.45 1.35 1.74 0.80 1.11 2.30 9.50
Domestic Relations Judges
Needed
2.12 1.22 1.16 0.38 0.81 2.05 0.99 1.02 2.48 2.45
Child Support Referee No Yes No No No Yes No No Yes No
Source: National Center for State Courts, 2013. Data on Filings provided by the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts.
* The 20th Judicial District ceased being the statutorily mandated jurisdiction for most appeals of UAPA Administrative Hearing in FY19. Nevertheless, an OREA survey
revealed that JD 20 continued to see a disproportionate amount of time-consuming UAPA appeals in FY19. In accordance with this fact and in keeping with Judicial Weighted
Caseload Updates since 2013, a case weight of 496 minutes is used in this district.
** Workload is based on the FY2019 Capacity of the drug courts.
18
Case Filings per Judicial District
Case Type
Case
Weight
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Criminal
First Degree Murder 776 5 29 11 19 34 11 1 24 2 249 4
Post Conviction Relief 381 3 10 6 6 9 16 1 1 3 49 6
Felony A & B 157 148 436 259 312 320 360 113 116 98 2,497 75
Felony C, D, & E 45 671 858 585 478 854 880 209 267 429 5,918 185
DUI 89 94 141 100 44 82 62 1 19 12 362 35
Recovery (Drug) Court ** 167 50 30 56 27 35 40 14 80
Criminal Appeals (incl.
juvenile delinquency)
11 18 8 2 2 4 2 1 5 1 0 1
Misdemeanor 29 236 575 318 39 144 378 14 75 44 1,324 216
Other Petitions, Motions,
Writs
28 299 28 158 8 82 0
Other Petitions, Motions,
Writs-Prison Districts
57 122 300 19 27 1,554
Probation Violation 18 676 1,583 967 729 1,257 758 358 155 265 886 393
General Civil/Other
Administrative Hearings 204 30 8 6 3 6 4 1 5 0 41 3
Contract/Debt/Specific
Performance
104 245 85 60 42 100 54 26 33 25 921 18
Damages/Tort 135 329 193 127 124 162 251 41 81 64 2,411 41
Guardianship/
Conservatorship
70 148 64 47 36 77 22 32 23 94 1 14
Judicial Hospitalization 19 0 1 0 0 33 0 0 5 0 0 0
Juvenile Court Appeal (Civil) 287 10 14 1 4 4 2 0 0 1 13 1
Medical Malpractice 1320 0 6 2 3 2 22 4 0 2 128 2
Probate/Trust 24 684 654 364 391 366 121 209 265 133 2 180
Other General Civil 58 511 253 196 111 247 205 108 82 658 1,680 160
Real Estate 259 66 54 39 33 30 22 11 17 22 109 10
Workers Compensation 41 0 8 0 0 1 3 136 2 0 14 0
Domestic Relations
Child Support 20 297 294 271 55 94 131 234 149 14 91 51
Divorce with Children 106 501 351 250 137 258 444 105 92 98 1,043 76
Divorce without Children 40 468 440 380 165 627 751 131 124 110 1,481 57
Residential Parenting 108 70 70 66 67 44 126 29 59 26 38 1
Protection of Children
(paternity, adoption,
legitimation, surrender, TPR)
65 137 145 109 57 75 98 34 25 22 254 50
Orders of Protection 32 24 199 75 2 37 27 0 0 128 9 311
Contempt 14 299 100 480 125 147 115 110 29 2 131 7
Other Domestic Relations 73 45 39 15 3 8 3 9 3 0 34 12
Total Filings 5,887 6,948 5,091 3,015 5,068 5,061 1,966 1,738 2,294 21,240 1,989
Workload (Weights x
Filings)
356,197 399,226 263,663 195,412 300,200 345,648 106,414 117,246 139,619 1,970,895 109,070
Judge Year (210 days per
year, 8 hrs. per day)
100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800
Average District Travel per year 5,817 6,993 17,766 10,731 14,217 3,339 13,545 8,526 8,358 294 672
Non-case Related Time (78
minutes/day)
16,380 16,380 16,380 16,380 16,380 16,380 16,380 16,380 16,380 16,380 16,380
Availability for Case-
Specific Work
78,603 77,427 66,654 73,689 70,203 81,081 70,875 75,894 76,062 84,126 83,748
# Judges 5 4 3 3 4 4 2 2 2 22 1
Total Judicial Officer Demand 4.53 5.16 3.96 2.65 4.28 4.26 1.50 1.54 1.84 23.43 1.30
FTE Deficit or Excess 0.47 -1.16 -0.96 0.35 -0.28 -0.26 0.50 0.46 0.16 -1.43 -0.30
19
Criminal Judges Needed 1.29 2.75 1.97 1.45 2.25 1.86 0.59 0.77 0.64 12.43 0.66
Civil Judges Needed 1.94 1.26 0.92 0.73 1.06 1.14 0.50 0.43 0.89 8.66 0.34
Domestic Relations Judges 1.30 1.14 1.07 0.48 0.97 1.26 0.40 0.35 0.31 2.34 0.31
Child Support Referee No No Yes No No No No No No No No
Source: National Center for State Courts, 2013. Data on filings provided by the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts.
* The 20th Judicial District ceased being the statutorily mandated jurisdiction for most appeals of UAPA Administrative Hearing in FY19. Nevertheless, an OREA survey revealed
that JD 20 continued to see a disproportionate amount of time-consuming UAPA appeals in FY19. In accordance with this fact and in keeping with Judicial Weighted Caseload
Updates since 2013, a case weight of 496 minutes is used in this district.
** Workload is based on the FY2019 Capacity of the drug courts.
20
Notes:.Judicial need calculated using the average judicial demand for FY 2017 – FY 2019 and the number of judges assigned to a district in FY 2019
Source: Judicial demand and need estimates derived from model developed by the NCSC and updated with filings data provided by the AOC.
Appendix D: Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Judges
Decit/Excess by Judicial District, FY 2017 – FY 2019
21
Appendix E: Tennessee Judicial Weighted Caseload
Update, FY 2019, Administrative Hearings Case
Type with a Uniform Weight of 318
e use of a uniform weight of 318 for Administrative Hearings as opposed to the split weight used since FY 2013
results in a very slight increase in judicial need for all districts aside from JD 20 (Davidson County). For JD 20, a
switch to a uniform weight results in a reduction of judicial need of 0.43 FTE judges.
Judicial District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Filings for Administrative
Hearings
7 0 17 9 0 11 5 19 9 17
FTE Deficit or Excess -0.82 0.04 0.34 -0.63 -0.04 -0.68 0.05 -0.17 0.10 0.03
Change in FTE vs. Split
Weight Model
-0.01 0.00 -0.03 -0.01 0.00 -0.02 -0.01 -0.03 -0.01 -0.03
Judicial District 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Filings for Administrative
Hearings
9 4 13 7 6 8 6 0 14 201
FTE Deficit or Excess -0.39 -0.68 -1.32 0.25 -0.21 -0.21 0.27 -0.52 -2.02 0.73
Change in FTE vs. Split
Weight Model
-0.01 -0.01 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 -0.02 0.43
Judicial District
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Filings for Administrative
Hearings
30 8 6 3 6 4 1 5 0 41
FTE Deficit or Excess 0.42 -1.17 -0.97 0.34 -0.29 -0.27 0.50 0.45 0.16 -1.48
Change in FTE vs. Split
Weight Model
-0.04 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.06
Judicial District 31 Totals
Filings for Administrative
Hearings
3 469
FTE Deficit or Excess -0.31 -8.50
Change in FTE vs. Split
Weight Model
0.00 0.03
Notes:
• A negative change in FTE judicial demand indicates an increase in judicial need when applying a uniform weight of 318 to Administrative Hearings. A positive
change in FTE judicial demand indicates a reduction in judicial need when applying a uniform weight of 318.
• See Appendix C for figures on case types other than Administrative Hearings for FY 2019.
• Judicial District 20 was the statutorily mandated jurisdiction in most appeals of UAPA Administrative Hearing cases prior to FY 2019. Pursuant to Public Chapter
1021 (2018) and effective as of July 1, 2018, appeals of Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (UAPA) cases may be filed “in the chancery court nearest to the
place of residence of the person contesting the agency action or alternatively, at the person’s discretion, in the chancery court nearest to the place where the cause of
action arose, or in the chancery court of Davidson County.”
Source: National Center for State Courts, 2013. Data on Filings provided by the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts.
