Tennessee House Bill HB2184

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/2/26
• Refer: 3/4/26
• Refer: 3/11/26
• Refer: 3/23/26
• Chaptered: 5/5/26
• Passed: 5/5/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 20, Chapter 18, relative to civil procedure.

Summary

HB2184 amends Tennessee’s civil procedure statutes governing certain actions that are heard by a specially selected three-judge panel. When one of these actions is filed, the filer must notify the presiding judge of the judicial district, who then notifies the Tennessee Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is required to appoint three trial court judges of courts of record to hear the case, with one judge selected from each grand division of the state to ensure geographic balance. The bill also changes venue rules for these actions. Instead of being limited by the general venue provisions in Tennessee law, the bill allows venue in any county in the state for a covered civil action. In addition, it extends the time period in Section 20-18-105(a) from 15 calendar days to 90 calendar days, giving parties more time to act under that section. The act takes effect July 1, 2026.

Impact

The bill revises Title 20, Chapter 18 of the Tennessee Code Annotated by changing how certain civil actions are assigned, where they may be filed, and the deadline for a procedural step in those cases. It centralizes panel selection in the Tennessee Supreme Court, requires regional representation on the panel, broadens venue statewide for covered actions, and lengthens a statutory deadline from 15 to 90 days. These changes affect litigants in the covered civil actions, trial judges eligible for panel service, and courts handling venue and case assignment.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests the bill was generally supported in committee, with strong favorable votes in both the House Civil Justice Subcommittee and the House Judiciary Committee. The bill advanced on a recommendation for passage, indicating overall legislative approval. No committee transcripts are available, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to show broader public or member sentiment beyond the votes.

Contention

The main points of potential contention are the statewide venue provision and the procedural changes to how three-judge panels are selected and how long parties have to comply with the affected deadline. Allowing venue in any county could be viewed as expanding forum choice for litigants, while the Supreme Court’s role in selecting judges and the requirement that each grand division be represented may raise concerns about judicial administration and regional balance. The 15-to-90-day extension may also have been debated as either a fairness improvement or a delay in resolving cases, but no transcript is available to identify specific objections.