ÿWPCp) {᪑ç×ë*jE¯..tØø€êMª.¢úò¦ §%§±§aY˜Sdá­<—â>Ö!'«Ž•Ôû×·¶?<ïÎàx£Bñ¦Ç ­å–Pþîõyn/;iˆ{( z-ÁÒÓ¹¶G1LuÆK®Æ=~¨Œ09èDwI«¤þŸ94öƒU8t:+A4ÄZé1n6z•¨Õ‘è ª,cÑåÖîÓOKVfAÀœœ<·1“ÇÆ)Üú‹Ù7êqí7oRWT áL nScÛxE‡Ó»ft«9Õƒ“¦f²®³8|×+¶Íå¡ÄP#…zcVl΄Vk§þ,<æ¾AcMçrm@‘Oª\z‘yt5èé2㾈=™ó£¾„‰eÔ#bÑ°ú2 ÚîG0&j ì ·sûç¡ÆU§%ÎÀQS™↹ÑÊÉÑíý|x³Á¹ö®Ñ‚‹ÚJïàœ[ꜙYäõ^ÁGÔ¡¼ôMXVnï¿0½ +\=-Sÿs‚Í ­î„Ñ"W»5/ËöZ˽WÐÝ)8¬îé;Xé.:ý°B¬µNÅ#˜fEí¾CìþskXoeºdËê QaJ‹Þïb“ÁƒÊfˆ«ö0üå3Ÿ¹n¯ÔŠ³%]ö"qLÍb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UYN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz ‘ ÆŸ ÆeÆ+Æñ 0 D·Nû 1uý 72rE¤ 0c¦U@ UNI —ë«X–Ÿî·DbZjÑÄ•" 0N«"«"jù"ù"ù"ù"ù"ù"ù"ù"bc$c$c$c$c$c$c$c$c$c$c$c$c$c$c$c$c$c$c$c$c$c$c$c$c$c$c$c$c$c$c$c$c$c$c$c$ 0 ëk$k$k$k$ BV%V% 0¤s% D5& D-L& 0Ky&y& ASÄ&Æ' 0¤Ý' 0D( A«Å(˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»†ƒÛ,s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular9‚±,ª¤ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Ý ƒR4’$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôá¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔU.C.H.R.A.Ô_Ô€based€this€assertion€on€the€fact€that€it€was€a€governmental€entity€and€that,€at€the€time€of€theÐ ° Ðaccident,€Ms.€Ô_ÔPooreÔ_Ô€was€an€employee€of€Ô_ÔU.C.H.R.A.Ô_Ô€and€was€acting€within€the€scope€of€her€employment.€€Neither€partyÐ tÄ Ðdisputes€these€facts€on€appeal.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman (ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regularÿÿ7422-14 áÝ ƒR4’$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôá¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSee€also€óówww.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.htmlòò€óó(giving€the€year€2000€census€statistics). NÝ ƒR4’$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôá¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€òòNortonóó,€the€Court€invited€the€legislature€to€enact€a€broad€transfer€statute.€€òòNortonóó,€895€S.W.2d€at€320.€€TheÐ ° Ðlegislature€has€since€done€so€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€16„1„116. •Ý ƒR4’$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôá¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAt€the€time€of€the€òòDoyle€óódecision€and€at€the€time€Ô_ÔU.C.H.R.A.Ô_Ô€asserted€its€statute€of€limitations€defense€herein,Ð ° ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€16„1„116,€which€provides€statutory€authority€for€such€a€transfer,€was€not€in€existence. ­Ý ƒR4’$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôá¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔObviously,€the€statute€was€enacted€after€Mr.€Gunterððs€injury€and€after€his€lawsuit€was€filed.€€It€was€also€signedÐ ° Ða€year,€almost€to€the€day,€after€Mr.€Gunter€filed€to€have€his€case€removed€to€the€circuit€court.€€It€became€effective€almostÐ tÄ Ðone€year€after€Ô_ÔU.C.H.R.A.Ô_Ô€asserted€its€statute€of€limitations€defense.€€Further,€it€was€enacted€seven€months€after€the€circuitÐ 8ˆ Ðcourtððs€order€dismissing€the€case€and€after€Mr.€Gunter€gave€his€notice€of€appeal€to€this€court. Ý ƒR4’$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôá¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Supreme€Court€made€the€same€distinction€in€òòNortonóó,€stating€ð ðwe€did€not€base€our€holding€[in€òòFlowersóó]Ð ° Ðupon€any€inherent€power€of€the€chancery€court.€€Rather,€we€determined€that€the€general€statute€governing€the€jurisdictionÐ tÄ Ðof€circuit€and€chancery€courts,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€16„11„102,€mandated€the€transfer.ðð€€òòNortonóó,€895€S.W.2d€at€320.  PÝ ƒR4’$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôá¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€general€sessions€court€is€given€concurrent€jurisdiction€with€the€circuit€court€for€claims€only€up€to€theÐ ° Ðmonetary€jurisdictional€limit€of€that€court€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„307. ÇÝ ƒR4’$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôá¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔNothing€in€the€record€before€us€indicates€that€the€Attorney€General€was€provided€notice€of€the€challenge€toÐ ° Ðthe€constitutionality€of€the€statute,€as€is€required€by€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€24.04.€€In€òòIn€re€E.N.R.óó,€42€S.W.3d€26€(Tenn.€2001),Ð tÄ Ðwith€regard€to€such€procedural€failure,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€noted€that€one€challenging€the€constitutionality€ofÐ 8ˆ Ða€statute€must€bear€the€ð ðheavy€burdenðð€of€overcoming€the€presumption€that€the€statute€is€constitutional.€€òòIdóó.€at€31.€Ð üL ÐFurther,€the€court€stated€that€ð ðconstitutional€issues€should€rarely€be€foreclosed€by€procedural€technicalities€.€.€.€ðð€but€thatÐ À Ðthe€plaintiffððs€argument€therein€ð ðwas€little€more€than€an€afterthought.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€62€(finding€the€constitutional€issue€was€notÐ „Ô Ðproperly€raised€at€the€trial€court).€€The€issue€of€lack€of€notice€to€the€Attorney€General€has€not€been€raised€herein€and€theÐ H ˜ Ðconsequences€of€that€failure€have€not€been€addressed.€€Taking€guidance€from€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Courtððs€commentsÐ  \ Ðin€òòIn€Re€E.N.R.,óó€where€such€consequences€had€been€debated€in€this€court,€we€have€chosen€to€address€Mr.€GunterððsÐ Ð  Ðconstitutional€argument.Ð ” ä  Ð Ñ ° Ñ(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ `Ý ƒR4’$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôá¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòHartóó€was€decided€on€a€different€provision€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€but€the€Court€included€a€history€ofÐ ° Ðchallenges€to€population€based€legislative€classifications€as€a€background€to€its€analysis.- ù-(|G24’$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Z]»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôá¥ò»»Ô d(|3‰[$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Z]»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‰[$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Z]»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Z]»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼Z]»»»ÔÑ8€XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  ÑÑ€#OYÑà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îGœî»¼Z]ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Z]»îîGœ#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓOctober€11,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XX»¼Z]ÔÌò òÔ#†¼Z]»XX#ÔJAMES€E.€GUNTER€v.€U.C.H.R.A.€AND€KRISTI€A.€POOREÔ‡XX»¼Z]Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Fentress€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€7681€€€€€€Conrad€A.€Troutman,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1999„01591„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€June€27,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  Óà  àIn€this€appeal,€the€appellant,€Mr.€Gunter,€filed€a€claim€for€personal€injury€and€propertyÐ xÈ  Ðdamages€against€a€local€governmental€entity€in€general€sessions€court.€€The€governmental€entityÐ d´ Ðorally€moved€to€dismiss€citing€the€Tennessee€Governmental€Tort€Liability€Act,€which€grantsÐ P  Ðexclusive€jurisdiction€over€these€cases€to€the€circuit€court.€€The€general€sessions€court€denied€theÐ <Œ Ðmotion€and€transferred€the€case€to€circuit€court,€and€that€court€dismissed€the€action€based€on€theÐ (x Ðstatute€of€limitations.€€Mr.€Gunter€now€appeals€the€dismissal€of€his€case€by€the€circuit€court.Ð d ÐÓºÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€CourtÐ ì< ÐAffirmed€and€Remandedó óÐ Ø( ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Z]»àX}#ÔÔ‡XX.¼Z]ÔPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòBen€H.€Cantrell,€P.J.,€M.S.,Ð ° ÐóóandÔ#†¼Z]»XXT#ÔÔ‡XX»¼Z]Ôòò€William€B.€Cainóó,€òòJ.óó,€joined.Ð œì ÐÌMichael€A.€Walker,€Jamestown,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€James€E.€Gunter.Ð tÄ ÐÌLane€Moore,€Cookeville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellees,€U.C.H.R.A.€and€Kristi€A.€Poore.Ð L œ ÐÓ%ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Z]»XX #ÔÔ‡XX»¼Z]ÔÐ $"t! ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àThe€plaintiff€in€the€underlying€action,€James€E.€Gunter€was€involved€in€an€automobileÐ ü#L# Ðaccident€on€December€15,€1997,€when€his€car€was€struck€by€the€defendant/appellee,€Kristy€A.€Poore.€Ð è$8 $ ÐAt€the€time€of€the€accident,€Ms.€Poore€was€employed€by€the€Upper€Cumberland€Human€ResourceÐ Ô%$!% ÐAgency€(ð ðU.C.H.R.A.ðð)€and€was€acting€within€the€scope€of€her€employment.€€Mr.€Gunter€filed€aÐ À&"& Ðcomplaint€in€general€sessions€court€on€December€14,€1998,€one€day€before€the€statute€of€limitationsÐ ¬'ü"' Ðexpired,€against€Ms.€Poore€and€the€U.C.H.R.A.€seeking€personal€injury€and€property€damages€forÐ ˜(è#( ÐMs.€Pooreððs€negligent€driving.€€Mr.€Gunter€then€filed€a€motion€to€remove€the€case€to€circuit€court,Ð „)Ô$) Ðwhich€was€granted€by€the€general€sessions€court€on€May€13,€1999.Ð p*À%* Ðâ âÐ \+¬&+ýÿ Ðà  àU.C.H.R.A.€filed€an€Answer€in€circuit€court€on€June€16,€1999,€in€which€it€asserted€that€Ms.Ð ° ÐPoore€was€immune€from€suit€pursuant€to€the€Tennessee€Governmental€Tort€Liability€Act€(ð ðGTLAðð).׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Рœì Ðâ âIn€addition,€U.C.H.R.A.€moved€for€dismissal€of€the€complaint€arguing€first€that€the€circuit€court€hadÐ ˆØ Ðexclusive€jurisdiction€over€suits€involving€the€GTLA€and,€since€Mr.€Gunter€filed€the€case€in€generalÐ tÄ Ðsessions€court,€his€suit€should€have€been€dismissed.€€Further,€U.C.H.R.A.€argued€that€the€generalÐ `° Ðsessions€judge€erred€by€granting€Mr.€Gunterððs€motion€to€remove€the€case€because€there€was€noÐ L œ Ðprocedure€in€law,€no€case€law€authority,€and€no€statute€that€allowed€such€a€removal.€€U.C.H.R.A.Ð 8 ˆ Ðalso€argued€that€since€the€statute€of€limitations€had€run,€Mr.€Gunter€could€not€proceed€with€his€actionÐ $ t Ðin€circuit€court.€€Ð  ` ÐÓÆ ÓÌà  àThe€circuit€court€granted€U.C.H.R.A.ððs€motion€to€dismiss€on€October€6,€1999,€fromÐ è 8  Ðwhich€Mr.€Gunter€now€appeals.€€That€order€stated:Ð Ô$  ÐÌÓ  Óà8  àGovernmental€Tort€liability€cases€are€unique€in€that€for€years€suits€against€aÐ ¬ü  Ðgovernmental€agency€could€not€be€filed.€€In€recent€years€the€legislature€has,€underÐ ˜è  Ðcertain€conditions,€authorized€these€types€of€suits.€€Since€this€exception€was€createdÐ „Ô  Ðby€the€legislature,€the€Courts€have€held€that€[plaintiffs]€must€comply€strictly€to€theÐ pÀ Ðstatutes.Ð\¬Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àIn€this€case€the€parties€acknowledge€that€the€exclusive€jurisdiction€is€with€the€CircuitÐ 4„ Ð[C]ourt.€€The€issue€in€this€case€is€whether€the€filing€in€General€Sessions€Court€tolledÐ  p Ðthe€[Statute]€of€Limitations€and/or€the€transfer€related€back€to€the€time€the€suit€wasÐ  \ Ðfiled€in€General€Sessions€Court.€ÐøHÐ Ð  ÐÓšÓÓ  ÓÌà8  àIt€is€the€holding€of€the€Court€that€since€the€General€Sessions€Court€had€no€jurisdictionÐ Ð  Ðof€the€matter,€it€had€no€authority€to€transfer€the€same€to€Circuit€Court.€€The€statuteÐ ¼  Ðof€limitations€had€run€prior€to€the€transfer.ШøÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€parties€agree€that€U.C.H.R.A.€is€a€governmental€entity€and,€as€such,€it€is€immune€fromÐ €Ð Ðsuit€except€to€the€extent€that€the€immunity€has€been€removed€by€the€legislature.€€In€1973,€theÐ l¼ Ðlegislature€passed€the€GTLA,€which€partially€removed€the€immunity€for€entities€like€U.C.H.R.A.€Ð X ¨ ÐWhile€the€Act€partially€removed€immunity,€it€stated€that€any€claim€for€damages€ð ðmust€be€broughtÐ D!” Ðin€strict€compliance€with€the€terms€of€this€chapter.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„201(c)òòóó.€€The€ActÐ 0"€  Ðrequires€that€all€actions€be€brought€in€circuit€court,€except€for€those€arising€in€counties€having€aÐ #l! Ðpopulation€of€more€than€600,000,€and€that€the€action€be€commenced€within€twelve€months€after€theÐ $X" Ðcause€of€action€arises.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„305€(b)€(Supp.€1999).€€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àÔ#†¼Z]»XX… #ÔÔ‡XX»¼Z]ÔMr.€Gunter€concedes€that€he€did€not€file€this€action€in€circuit€court€within€twelve€months€ofÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€accident.€€However,€he€contends€that€by€filing€the€action€in€general€sessions€court€he€tolled€theÐ ¸'#& Ðrunning€of€the€statue€of€limitations€and€that€the€transfer€to€circuit€court€kept€the€action€alive.€€He€alsoÐ ° ÐÔ#†¼Z]»XX1#ÔÔ‡XX»¼Z]Ôpoints€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€16„1„116,€enacted€after€the€circuit€courtððs€ruling€herein,€which€requiresÐ œì Ða€court€to€transfer€cases€over€which€the€court€lacks€jurisdiction€to€the€appropriate€court,€if€theÐ ˆØ Ðinterests€of€justice€require.€Ô_ÔÔ_Ô€Mr.€Gunter€implores€this€court€to€apply€that€legislation€to€the€case€atÐ tÄ Ðhand.€€Finally,€Mr.€Gunter€argues€that€Part€3€of€the€GTLA€violates€the€Tennessee€ConstitutionÐ `° Ðbecause€it€treats€citizens€of€smaller€counties€differently€from€citizens€of€counties€with€a€populationÐ L œ Ðof€more€than€600,000.€€We€find€none€of€these€arguments€persuasive€and,€therefore,€affirm€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðdecision€of€the€trial€court€to€dismiss€this€action.€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àà@œ œ ìàI.€€Filing€in€a€Court€Without€JurisdictionˆÐ ü L  ÐÌà  àThe€first€issue€that€we€must€decide€is€whether€Mr.€Gunterððs€cause€of€action€can€be€saved€byÐ Ô$  Ðthe€filing€of€his€complaint€in€general€sessions€court€prior€to€the€expiration€of€the€statute€ofÐ À  Ðlimitations.€€The€general€rule€is€that€ð ða€court€lacking€subject€matter€jurisdiction€over€a€case€has€noÐ ¬ü  Ðauthority€to€transfer€it,€unless€that€authority€is€specifically€conferred€by€statute,€rule,€or€constitutionalÐ ˜è  Ðprovision.ðð€€òòNorton€v.€Everhartóó,€895€S.W.2d€317,€319€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÐ „Ô  Ðhas€clearly€stated€that€trial€courts€possess€no€ð ðinherent€authority€to€transfer€cases€in€the€absence€ofÐ pÀ Ðstatutory€authority.ðð€€òòIdóó.€895€S.W.2d€at€320;€òòColeman€v.€Colemanóó,€190€Tenn.€286,€293„94,€229Ð \¬ ÐS.W.2d€341,€344„45€(Tenn.€1950).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€question€of€whether€an€action€can€be€maintained€against€a€governmental€entity€when€itÐ  p Ðwas€originally€filed€in€the€general€sessions€court€and€later€ð ðremovedðð€to€the€circuit€court€after€theÐ  \ Ðstatute€of€limitations€expired€has€previously€been€addressed€by€this€court€in€òòDoyle€v.€Coleóó,€No.Ð øH ÐM1999„02115„COA„R9„CV,€2000€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€4€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Jan.€10,€2000)€(no€Tenn.Ð ä4 ÐR.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).€€In€òòDoyleóó,€the€plaintiffs€filed€a€civil€action€in€the€General€SessionsÐ Ð  ÐCourt€of€Davidson€County€on€October€26,€1998,€against€the€Nashville€Electrical€Service€(ð ðNESðð),Ð ¼  Ðclaiming€that€they€were€injured€in€an€accident€caused€by€an€NES€agent€on€November€6,€1997.€€NESÐ ¨ø Ðfiled€a€motion€to€dismiss€and,€in€response,€the€plaintiffs€filed€a€motion€to€ð ðremoveðð€the€case€to€theÐ ”ä Ðcircuit€court.€€On€December€10,€1998,€the€general€sessions€court€transferred€the€case€to€the€circuitÐ €Ð Ðcourt.€€NES€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€which€the€circuit€court€overruled.€€AnÐ l¼ Ðinterlocutory€appeal€was€taken€to€this€court.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àThe€appellees€in€that€case€conceded€before€this€court€that€they€had€not€filed€their€lawsuit€inÐ 0"€  Ðthe€circuit€court€within€twelve€months€of€the€accident.€€However,€they€contended€that€by€filing€theÐ #l! Ðaction€in€the€general€sessions€court€they€tolled€the€running€of€the€statute€of€limitations€and€that€theÐ $X" Ðtransfer€to€the€circuit€court€kept€the€action€alive,€citing€òòFlowers€v.€Dyer€Countyóó,€830€S.W.2d€51Ð ô$D # Ð(Tenn.€1992).€€In€òòDoyleóó,€this€court€first€distinguished€the€case€therein€from€òòFlowersóó€by€noting€that,Ð à%0!$ Ðâ âin€òòFlowersóó,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€applied€the€provisions€of€a€statute,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€16„Ð Ì&"% Ð11„102(b),€that€mandated€the€transfer€of€suits€filed€in€chancery€court€to€the€circuit€court€when€theÐ ° Ðchancery€court€does€not€have€subject€matter€jurisdiction.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€court€then€stated:Ð œì Ðâ âÌà8  àWe€know€of€no€comparable€statutory€provisions€mandating€(or€allowing)€a€case€toÐ tÄ Ðbe€transferred€from€the€general€sessions€court€to€the€circuit€court.€€The€circuit€courtÐ `° Ðdoes€have€appellate€jurisdiction€over€cases€tried€in€the€general€sessions€court,€Tenn.Ð L œ ÐCode€Ann.€€ðð€16„11„112,€and€the€circuit€court€and€chancery€courts€may€remove€casesÐ 8 ˆ Ðfrom€the€general€sessions€courts€by€writ€of€certiorari.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô#†¼Z]»XXß#ÔÔ‡XX»¼Z]Ô€ðð€27„8„104.€Ð $ t ÐBut€we€hold€that€the€general€sessions€court€did€not€have€the€authority€to€transfer€oneÐ  ` Ðof€its€cases€to€the€circuit€court€prior€to€the€rendition€of€judgment.€€Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àIn€a€case€involving€an€unauthorized€transfer€from€the€circuit€court€to€the€TennesseeÐ Ô$  ÐClaims€Commission,€this€court€dismissed€the€action€on€a€statute€of€limitationsÐ À  Ðdefense.€€The€court€said,€ð ðsince€the€case€was€not€transferred€pursuant€to€Tenn.€CodeÐ ¬ü  ÐAnn.€Ô#†¼Z]»XXã0#ÔÔ‡XX»¼Z]Ôðð€9„8„307(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)(1),€the€filing€of€the€action€in€the€Circuit€Court€.€.€.€cannot€be€reliedÐ ˜è  Ðupon€to€toll€the€running€of€the€statute€of€limitations.ðð€€òòLocust€v.€Stateóó,€912€S.W.2dÐ „Ô  Ð716,€718€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€We€think€the€same€reasoning€applies€here.€ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌòòDoyleóó,€2000€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€4,€at€*3„*4€(footnote€omitted).€€In€accordance€with€òòColemanóó,Ð H˜ ÐòòNortonóó,€and€òòDoyleóó,€we€find€that€Mr.€Gunterððs€filing€of€the€complaint€herein€in€general€sessions€courtÐ 4„ Ðdid€not€toll€the€statute€of€limitations,€and€the€ð ðremovalðð€was€unauthorized.׃Ü×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Thus,€he€did€not€file€hisÐ  p Ðlawsuit€in€the€court€with€exclusive€jurisdiction€within€the€time€allowed€by€statute.Ô#†¼Z]»XXe3#ÔÔ‡XX»¼Z]ÔÐ  \ ÐÔ#†¼Z]»XX>7#ÔÔ‡XX»¼Z]ÔÌà@ááìàII.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€16„1„116Ô#†¼Z]»XX•7#ÔÔ‡XX»¼Z]ԈРä4 ÐÌà  àMr.€Gunter€argues€that€this€court€should€apply€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€16„1„116€to€allow€theÐ ¼  Ðtransfer€to€circuit€court,€thereby€saving€his€lawsuit€from€the€statute€of€limitations.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð ¨ø Ððð€16„1„116€was€signed€into€law€on€May€23,€2000Ô#†¼Z]»XX 8#ÔÔ‡XX»¼Z]Ô,€seven€months€after€the€trial€court€dismissed€hisÐ ”ä Ðlawsuit.׃,×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Mr.€Gunter€argues€that€this€court€should€apply€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€16„1„116€retroactivelyÐ €Ð Ðto€save€his€cause€of€action.Ô#†¼Z]»XXŒ9#ÔÔ‡XX»¼Z]ÔÐ l¼ ÐÌà  àÔ#†¼Z]»XXý:#ÔÔ‡XX»¼Z]ÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€16„1„116€states:Ð D!” ÐÐ 0"€  Ðò òà8  àTransfer€of€actions€or€appeals.€„ó ó€Notwithstanding€any€other€provision€of€law€or€ruleÐ ° Ðof€court€to€the€contrary,€when€an€original€civil€action€.€.€.€is€filed€in€a€state€or€countyÐ  ð Ðcourt€of€record€or€a€general€sessions€court€and€such€court€determines€that€it€lacksÐ ŒÜ Ðjurisdiction,€the€court€shall,€if€it€is€in€the€interest€of€justice,€transfer€such€action€orÐ xÈ Ðappeal€to€any€other€such€court€in€which€the€action€or€appeal€could€have€been€broughtÐ d´ Ðat€the€time€it€was€originally€filed.€€Upon€such€a€transfer,€the€action€or€appeal€shallÐ P   Ðproceed€as€if€it€had€been€originally€filed€in€the€court€to€which€it€is€transferred€on€theÐ < Œ Ðdate€upon€which€it€was€actually€filed€in€the€court€from€which€it€was€transferred.Ô#†¼Z]»XXa;#ÔÔ‡XX»¼Z]ÔÐ( xÐ Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€16„1„116Ô#†¼Z]»XXH?#ÔÔ‡XX»¼Z]Ô€(Supp.€2001).Ð  P  ÐÌà  àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€said,€ð ðIt€is€the€rule€that€statutes€do€not€operateÐ Ø(  Ðretroactively,€unless€this€is€so€provided€therein.ðð€€òòHenderson€v.€Fordóó,€488€S.W.2d€720,€721€(Tenn.Ð Ä  Ð1972).€€òòHendersonóó€cites€òòJennings€v.€Jenningsóó,€165€Tenn.€295,€54€S.W.2d€961€(1932),€as€ð ða€goodÐ °  Ðstatement€of€this€rule,ðð€which€is€stated€as€follows:Ð œì  ÐÌà8  àIt€was€said€by€this€court€.€.€.€ð ðthat€all€statutes€are€to€be€construed€as€having€only€aÐ tÄ Ðprospective€operation,€unless€the€purpose€and€intention€of€the€Legislature€to€giveÐ `° Ðthem€a€retrospective€effect€is€expressly€declared€or€is€necessarily€implied€from€theÐ Lœ Ðlanguage€used.€€In€every€case€of€doubt,€the€doubt€must€be€solved€against€theÐ 8ˆ Ðretrospective€effect.ðð€€And€again€ð ðthat€the€law€will€not€be€given€a€retrospectiveÐ $t Ðoperation,€unless€that€intention€has€been€manifested€by€the€most€clear€andÐ ` Ðunequivocal€expression.ððÐüLÐ Ð  ÐÌòòJenningsóó,€165€Tenn.€at€303,€54€S.W.2d€at€963„64€(citations€omitted);€òòsee€also€Hendersonóó,€488Ð Ô$ ÐS.W.2d€at€721.Ð À ÐÌà  àAn€exception€to€this€general€rule€exists€in€the€case€of€statutes€which€are€purely€proceduralÐ ˜è Ðin€nature.€€Thus,€procedural€statues€may€be€retroactively€applied€to€an€existing€cause€of€action,€unlessÐ „Ô Ðthe€legislature€indicates€a€contrary€intention€or€retroactive€application€would€produce€an€unjustÐ pÀ Ðresult.€€òòSaylors€v€Riggsbeeóó,€544€S.W.2d€609,€610€(Tenn.€1976).€€However,€retrospective€applicationÐ \ ¬ Ðof€a€statute€whose€primarily€purpose€is€procedural€is€constitutionally€forbidden€if€it€creates€a€newÐ H!˜ Ðright,€takes€away€a€vested€right€or€impairs€contractual€obligations.€€òòHendersonóó,€488€S.W.2d€at€721;Ð 4"„  Ðòòsee€Collier€v.€Memphis€Light,€Gas€&€Water€Div.óó,€657€S.W.2d€771,€775€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983)òòóó.€€Ô‡XXXXÔOurÐ  #p! ÐSupreme€Court€has€construed€Article€I,€section€20€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€as€prohibiting€lawsÐ  $\" Ðð ðwhich€take€away€or€impair€vested€rights€acquired€under€existing€laws€or€create€a€new€obligation,Ð ø$H # Ðimpose€a€new€duty,€or€attach€a€new€disability€in€respect€of€transactions€or€considerations€alreadyÐ ä%4!$ Ðpassed.ðð€€Ô#†XXXXmH#ÔÔ#†¼Z]»XXÇ?#ÔÔ‡XX»¼Z]ÔÔ‡XXXXÔòòDoe€v.€Sundquistóó,€2€S.W.3d€919,€923€(Tenn.€1999)€(citing€òòMorris€v.€Grossóó,€572€S.W.2dÐ Ð& "% Ð902,€905€(Tenn.€1978)).€€Ð ¼' #& ÐÌÔ#†XXXXJ#ÔÔ#†¼Z]»XX`J#ÔÔ‡XX»¼Z]Ôà  àTherefore,€the€issue€is€whether€the€retroactive€application€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÔ#†¼Z]»XXˆK#ÔÔ‡XX»¼Z]Ô€16„1„116Ð ”)ä$( Ðwould€impair€any€vested€right€of€U.C.H.R.A.€€Ô‡XXXXÔA€ð ðððvested€right,ððÔ#†XXXX“L#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔ€although€difficult€Ô% ‡ ÔÔ%†#MÔto€define€withÐ €*Ð%) Ðprecision,€is€one€ððwhich€it€is€proper€for€the€state€to€recognize€and€protect€and€of€which€[an]Ð l+¼&* Ðindividual€could€not€be€deprived€arbitrarily€without€injustice.ðððð€€òòIdóó.€€Ô#†XXXXðL#ÔÔ#†¼Z]»XX)L#ÔÔ‡XX»¼Z]ÔThe€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÐ ° Ðhas€long€held€that:€Ð œì ÐÌà8  àWhen€a€cause€of€action€is€barred€by€a€statute€of€limitations,€in€force€at€the€time€theÐ tÄ Ðright€to€sue€arose€and€until€the€time€of€limitation€expired,€that€the€right€to€rely€uponÐ `° Ðthe€statute€as€a€defense€is€a€vested€right€that€can€not€be€disturbed€by€subsequentÐ L œ Ðlegislation.Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌòòYancy€v.€Yancyóó,€52€Tenn.€353,€362€(1871);€òòsee€also€Owens€v.€Truckstops€of€Am.óó,€915€S.W.2d€420,Ð  ` Ð427€(Tenn.€1996)€(holding€that€ð ðThis€Court€has€determined€that€a€potential€defendant€acquires€aÐ ü L  Ðvested€right€not€to€be€sued€once€a€cause€of€action€has€accrued€and€the€applicable€statute€of€limitationsÐ è 8  Ðhas€expired.);€òòWatts€v.€Putnam€Countyóó,€525€S.W.2d€488,€492€(Tenn.€1975);òò€Collieróó,€657€S.W.2d€atÐ Ô$  Ð775;òò€Estate€of€Carlisia€Toney€v.€Cunninghamóó,€C.A.€No.€02A01„9801„CV„00005,€1999€Tenn.€App.Ð À  ÐLEXIS€222,€at€*6€n.2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Apr.€6,€1999)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).€€ThisÐ ¬ü  Ðholding€has€been€applied€in€the€context€of€an€action€under€the€GTLA.€€òòCollieróó,€657€S.W.2d€at€775.€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àIn€òòCollieróó,€the€plaintiff€sought€a€wrongful€death€action€against€the€state€for€the€death€of€herÐ pÀ Ðson,€who€was€a€minor.€€The€accident€giving€rise€to€the€wrongful€death€claim€occurred€on€August€8,Ð \¬ Ð1978,€when€a€wrongful€death€claim€was€subject€to€a€one€year€statute€of€limitations.€€In€1980,€theÐ H˜ ÐLegislature€extended€the€statute€of€limitations€for€a€minorððs€wrongful€death€claim€until€one€year€afterÐ 4„ Ðthe€decedent€would€have€reached€the€age€of€18€years.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„1„106€(1980);Ð  p ÐòòCollieróó,€657€S.W.2d€at€773.€€The€plaintiff€filed€a€complaint€against€the€state€on€July€20,€1981,€whichÐ  \ Ðwas€dismissed€by€this€court.€€We€stated:Ð øH ÐÌà8  àWe€.€.€.€consider,€however,€whether€the€amendment€to€the€Act€in€1980€can€be€appliedÐ Ð  Ðretrospectively.€€As€noted,€suit€was€not€filed€within€12€months€of€the€accrual€of€theÐ ¼  Ðcause€of€action,€and€absent€the€application€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„1„106,€the€causeÐ ¨ø Ðof€action€is€barred.ДäÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àWhen€a€statute€creates€a€new€right,€takes€away€a€vested€right,€or€impairs€contractualÐ l¼ Ðobligations,€its€retrospective€application€is€constitutionally€forbidden.€€òòTenn.€Const.Ð X ¨ Ðóóart.€1€ðð€20;€òòAnderson€v.€Memphis€Housing€Auth.óó,€534€S.W.2d€125,€127€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð D!” ÐApp.€1975).€€Since€the€suit€of€plaintiffs€was€barred€at€the€time€of€the€amendment€toÐ 0"€  Ðthe€Act,€there€can€be€no€doubt€that€a€retrospective€application€of€the€amendment€isÐ #l! Ðforbidden€as€taking€away€a€vested€right.€€Therefore,€we€hold€that€the€actions€of€theÐ $X" Ðplaintiffs€under€the€Act€are€barred€.€.€.€.€€Ðô$D #Ð Ð  ÐÌòòCollieróó,€756€S.W.2d€at€775.€€Ô#†¼Z]»XXtN#ÔÔ‡XX»¼Z]Ô€Ô#†¼Z]»XXŒ[#ÔÔ‡XX»¼Z]ÔÐ Ì&"% ÐÌà  àSimilarly,€in€the€case€herein,€Mr.€Gunterððs€suit€was€barred€at€the€time€of€the€enactment€ofÐ ¤(ô#' ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô‡XXXXÔððÔ#†XXXX“\#ÔÔ#†¼Z]»XXÏ[#ÔÔ‡XX»¼Z]Ô€16„1„116.€€If€this€court€allowed€Mr.€Gunter€to€rely€on€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð16„1„Ð )à$( Ð116€it€would€impair€U.C.H.R.A.ððs€vested€right€in€its€statute€of€limitations€defense,€in€contraventionÐ |*Ì%) Ðof€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€U.C.H.R.A.€had€an€absolute€defense€to€any€case€brought€against€itÐ h+¸&* Ðby€Mr.€Gunter€after€the€one€year€statute€of€limitations€had€run.€€Ô_ÔU.C.H.R.A.Ô_Ôððs€defense€vestedÐ ° ÐDecember€16,€1998,€one€year€and€one€day€after€the€date€of€the€accident.€€The€legislation,€enactedÐ œì ÐMay€23,€2000,€cannot€impair€U.C.H.R.A.ððs€vested€right€in€its€statute€of€limitations€defense.€€Ô#†¼Z]»XXü\#ÔÔ‡XX»¼Z]ÔÐ ˆØ ÐÌà@——ìàIII.€€Constitutional€Law€ArgumentˆÐ `° ÐÌà  àThe€last€issue€that€we€must€address€is€whether€the€Tennessee€Constitution€prevents€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðdismissal€of€Mr.€Gunterððs€complaint.€€Mr.€Gunter€argues€that€dismissal€of€his€case€violates€theÐ $ t ÐConstitution€for€two€reasons.Ô#†¼Z]»XX`#ÔÔ‡XX»¼Z]Ô׃"×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†¼Z]»XX°a#ÔÔ‡XX»¼Z]Ô€€The€first€is€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„307€allows€only€citizensÐ  ` Ðresiding€in€counties€which€have€a€population€of€more€than€600,000€to€file€a€claim€based€on€theÐ ü L  ÐGTLA€in€general€sessions€court,€thereby€treating€Mr.€Gunter,€who€resides€in€Fentress€County,€whichÐ è 8  Ðhas€a€population€of€less€than€600,000,€differently.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àÔ#†¼Z]»XXEb#ÔÔ‡XX»¼Z]ÔThe€text€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„307€reads:Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà8  àThe€circuit€courts€shall€have€exclusive€original€jurisdiction€over€any€action€broughtÐ „Ô  Ðunder€this€chapter€and€shall€hear€and€decide€such€suits€without€the€intervention€of€aÐ pÀ Ðjury,€except€as€otherwise€provided€in€ðð€29„20„313(b);€provided,€that€in€countiesÐ \¬ Ðhaving€a€population€of€more€than€six€hundred€thousand€(600,000)€according€to€theÐ H˜ Ð1970€federal€census€or€any€subsequent€federal€census,€the€general€sessions€court€shallÐ 4„ Ðhave€concurrent€original€jurisdiction€with€such€circuit€court€over€any€action€broughtÐ  p Ðunder€this€chapter;€and€provided€further,€that€the€jurisdiction€conferred€upon€theÐ  \ Ðgeneral€sessions€court€by€the€provisions€of€this€section€shall€not€extend€beyond€theÐ øH Ðjurisdictional€dollar€limit€provided€in€ðð€16„15„501(d)€for€such€general€sessions€courtsÐ ä4 Ðin€civil€cases€generally.€€ÐÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌòòId.€óóÔ#†¼Z]»XX"d#ÔÔ‡XX»¼Z]ÔThe€only€county€that€meets€the€population€requirements€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„307€by€Ð ¨ø Ðhaving€a€population€of€more€than€600,000€according€to€the€1970€or€later€census€is€Shelby€County.€Ð ”ä ÐòòSee€€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€tit.€13€Tables€p.€1013.׃ü ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€all€other€counties€in€the€state,€the€general€sessionsÐ €Ð Ðcourt€does€not€have€concurrent€jurisdiction€with€the€circuit€court€to€hear€cases€brought€pursuant€toÐ l¼ Ðthe€Ô_ÔGTLAÔ_Ô.€€Thus,€in€every€county€but€one,€all€claimants€under€the€Ô_ÔGTLAÔ_Ô€must€file€in€circuit€court.€Ð X ¨ ÐÑ#OYÑâ #âÑ°°Ñâ #âÑ  ÑÔ#†¼Z]»XX±h#ÔÔ‡XX»¼Z]Ôà  àMr.€Gunter€argues€that€the€population€requirement€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„307€isÔ#†¼Z]»XX$l#ÔÔ‡XX»¼Z]Ô€aÐ ° Ðviolation€of€the€Equal€Protection€Clause€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€òòóóWe€begin€our€analysis€byÐ œì Ðnoting€that€ð ðthe€Legislature€of€Tennessee,€like€the€legislature€of€all€other€sovereign€states,€can€do€allÐ ˆØ Ðthings€not€prohibited€by€the€Constitution€of€this€State€or€of€the€United€States.ðð€€òòÔ_ÔNolichuckeyÔ_Ô€SandÐ tÄ ÐCo.,€Inc.€v.€Ô_ÔHuddlestonÔ_Ôóó,€896€S.W.2d€782,€788€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994)€(citing€òòPerry€v.€LawrenceÐ `° ÐElection€Comm.óó,€219€Tenn.€548,€411€S.W.2d€538,€539€(Tenn.€1967)).€€Therefore,€courts€must€upholdÐ L œ Ðlegislation€except€where€it€directly€impinges€on€the€state€or€federal€constitutions.€€òòIdóó.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àOf€the€two€provisions€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€that€guarantee€equal€protection,€Mr.Ð  ` ÐGunter€claims€only€one€is€violated€by€the€population€classification€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô#†¼Z]»XXÈl#ÔÔ€XX»¼Z]Ôðð€29„20„307:Ð ü L  Ðthe€Class€Legislation€Clause,€which€provides:Ð è 8  ÐÌà8  àò òGeneral€laws€only€to€be€passed.ð!ðó óThe€Legislature€shall€have€no€power€to€suspendÐ À  Ðany€general€law€for€the€benefit€of€any€particular€individual,€nor€to€pass€any€law€forÐ °  Ðthe€benefit€of€individuals€inconsistent€with€the€general€laws€of€the€land;€nor€to€passÐ œì  Ðany€law€granting€to€any€individual€or€individuals,€rights,€privileges,[€immunities],€orÐ ˆØ  Ðexemptions€other€than€such€as€may€be,€by€the€same€law€extended€to€any€member€ofÐ tÄ Ðthe€community,€who€may€be€able€to€bring€himself€within€the€provisions€of€such€law.Ð`°Ð Ð  ÐÌòòTenn.€Constóó.€art.€XI,€ðð€8.Ð 8ˆ ÐÌà  àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€previously€considered€constitutional€challenges€toÐ ` Ðlegislation€based€on€population€classifications€and€has€interpreted€Article€XI,€section€8€of€theÐ üL ÐTennessee€Constitution€as€prohibiting€the€legislature€from€passing€laws€that€benefit€a€specific€countyÐ è8 Ðor€counties€or€an€individual€or€individualsòòóó€unless€the€special€classification€rests€on€a€reasonableÐ Ô$ Ðbasis.òò€€óóThe€Court€recently€explained€the€appropriate€analysis.òòÐ À ÐÌóóÔ‡XXXXÔà8  àWe€have€often€recognized€that€the€Class€Legislation€Clause€of€Article€XI,€section€8Ð ˜è Ðis€similar€to€the€Equal€Protection€Clause€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€to€the€UnitedÐ „Ô ÐStates€Constitution,€and€this€Court€has€previously€applied€Equal€Protection€analysisÐ pÀ Ðto€questions€arising€under€the€Class€Legislation€Clause.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€Riggs€v.€Bursonóó,Ð \ ¬ Ð941€S.W.2d€44,€52€(Tenn.€1997).€€To€this€end,€we€have€recognized€that€Article€XI,Ð H!˜ Ðsection€8€ð ðguarantees€that€persons€similarly€situated€shall€be€treated€alikeðð€òòEvans€v.Ð 4"„  ÐSteelmanóó,€970€S.W.2d€431,€435€(Tenn.€1998)€(citation€omitted),€and€that€it€ð ðprohibitsÐ  #p! Ðthe€General€Assembly€from€suspending€the€general€law€or€passing€any€lawÐ  $\" Ðinconsistent€with€the€general€law€for€the€benefit€of€any€individual€[or€group€ofÐ ø$H # Ðindividuals].€.€.€.ðð€€òòFinister€v.€Humboldt€Gen.€Hosp.,€Inc.óó,€970€S.W.2d€435,€440€n.€3Ð ä%4!$ Ð(Tenn.€1998).ÐÐ& "%Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àHowever,€the€Class€Legislation€Clause€does€not€remove€from€the€General€AssemblyÐ ¨(ø#' Ðall€power€to€draw€classifications€distinguishing€among€differing€groups.€€ð ðThe€initialÐ ”)ä$( Ðdiscretion€to€determine€what€is€ððdifferentðð€and€what€is€ððthe€sameðð€resides€in€theÐ €*Ð%) Ðlegislatures€of€the€States,€and€the€legislatures€are€allowed€considerable€latitude€inÐ l+¼&* Ðestablishing€classifications€and€thereby€determining€what€groups€are€different€andÐ ° Ðwhat€groups€are€the€same.ðð€€òòState€v.€Smoky€Mountain€Secrets,€Inc.óó,€937€S.W.2d€905,Ð œì Ð912€(Tenn.€1996)€(quoting€òòPlyler€v.€Doeóó,€457€U.S.€202,€216,€102€S.€Ct.€2382,€72Ð ˆØ ÐL.Ed.2d€786€(1982)€(internal€quotation€marks€removed)).€€Therefore,€unless€theÐ tÄ Ðclassification€ð ðinterferes€with€the€exercise€of€a€ððfundamental€rightðð€or€operates€to€theÐ `° Ðpeculiar€disadvantage€of€a€ððsuspect€class,ðð€Article€XI,€section€8€requires€only€that€theÐ L œ Ðlegislative€classification€be€rationally€related€to€the€objective€it€seeks€to€achieve.€€òòSee,Ð 8 ˆ Ðe.g.,€Newton€v.€Coxóó,€878€S.W.2d€105,€110€(Tenn.€1994).Ô#†XXXXŸv#ÔòòÐ$ tÐ Ð  ÐÌCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Davis,€óó54€S.W.3d€248,€276€(Tenn.€2001)òò.€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àóóAccordingly,€unless€a€fundamental€right€or€suspect€class€is€involved,€legislativeÐ Ô$  Ðclassifications€are€generally€examined€to€determine€if€there€is€a€rational€basis€for€the€classification.€Ð À  ÐBecause€all€citizens€with€claims€against€local€governments€are€provided€a€method€to€bring€thoseÐ ¬ü  Ðactions,€no€fundamental€right€is€implicated€by€the€statutory€provision€allowing€citizens€of€the€mostÐ ˜è  Ðpopulous€county€to€bring€qualifying€GTLA€actions€in€either€of€two€courts.€€Neither€Mr.€Gunter€norÐ „Ô  Ðother€individuals€are€denied€access€to€courts€by€the€provision.€€Similarly,€the€provision€does€notÐ pÀ Ðadversely€affect€any€suspect€class.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àIn€applying€the€rational€basis€test,€courts€presume€that€the€legislature€acted€constitutionally€Ð 4„ Ðand€will€uphold€the€statute€ð ðif€any€state€of€facts€can€reasonably€be€conceived€to€justify€theÐ  p Ðclassification€or€if€the€unreasonableness€of€the€class€is€fairly€debatable.€.€.€.ðð€€òòCity€of€Chattanoogaóó,Ð  \ Ð54€S.W.3d€at€276€(quoting€òòBates€v.€Alexanderóó,€749€S.W.2d€742,€743€(Tenn.€1988)).€€WhenÐ øH Ðdetermining€whether€a€rational€or€reasonable€basis€exists€for€the€legislatureððs€special€classificationÐ ä4 Ðbased€on€population€we€must€first€look€to€any€reason€provided€by€the€act.€€òòStalcupóó,€577€S.W.2d€439,Ð Ð  Ð442€(Tenn.€1978).€€However:Ð ¼  ÐÌà8  àIt€is€not€necessary€that€the€reasons€for€the€classification€appear€on€the€face€of€theÐ ”ä Ðlegislation.€€òòState€ex€rel.€Melton€v.€Nolanóó,€161€Tenn.€293,€30€S.W.2d€601€(1930).€€IfÐ €Ð Ðany€possible€reason€can€be€conceived€to€justify€the€classification,€it€will€be€upheldÐ l¼ Ðand€deemed€reasonable.€€òòKnox„Tenn€Theaters€v.€McCanlessóó,€177€Tenn.€497,€151Ð X ¨ ÐS.W.2d€164€(1941).€€So€long€as€the€statute€applies€equally€and€consistently€to€allÐ D!” Ðpersons€who€are€or€may€come€into€the€like€situation€or€circumstance,€it€is€notÐ 0"€  Ðobjectionable€as€being€based€upon€an€unreasonable€classification.€€òòStratton€v.€Morrisóó,Ð #l! Ð89€Tenn.€497,€15€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€87€(1890).€€There€is€no€general€rule€by€which€to€distinguishÐ $X" Ða€reasonable€from€an€unreasonable€classification,€the€question€being€a€practical€oneÐ ô$D # Ðvarying€with€the€facts€in€each€case.€€òòDilworth€v.€Stateóó,€204€Tenn.€522,€322€S.W.2dÐ à%0!$ Ð219€(1959).€€Where€the€reasonableness€of€the€classification€is€fairly€debatable€theÐ Ì&"% Ðcourts€will€uphold€the€classification.€€òòPhillips€v.€Stateóó,€202€Tenn.€402,€304€S.W.2dÐ ¸'#& Ð614€(1957).€€The€burden€of€showing€that€the€classification€does€not€rest€upon€aÐ ¤(ô#' Ðreasonable€basis€is€upon€the€party€attacking€the€statute.€€òòEstrin€v.€Mossóó,€221€Tenn.Ð )à$( Ð657,€430€S.W.2d€345€(1968).€€Ð|*Ì%)Ð Ð  ÐÐ h+¸&* ÐòòStalcupóó,€577€S.W.2d€at€442.€€Ð ° ÐÌà  àIn€òòHart€v.€City€of€Johnson€Cityóó,€801€S.W.2d€512€(Tenn.€1990),€òòóóthe€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÐ ˆØ Ðlisted€cases€in€which€the€use€of€population€classifications€in€legislation€which€rendered€generalÐ tÄ Ðstatutes€applicable€in€one€or€several,€but€not€all,€counties€were€upheld€as€having€a€rational€basis:€€òòÐ `° ÐÌà8  àóóThis€Court€has€upheld€the€use€of€population€classifications€in€legislation€which€hasÐ 8 ˆ Ðrendered€general€statutes€applicable€in€several,€but€not€all,€counties€in€which€theÐ $ t ÐCourt€found€a€rational€basis€for€the€classification.€€òòSee,€e.g.,óó€òòBates€v.€Alexanderóó,€749Ð  ` ÐS.W.2d€742€(Tenn.€1988)€(upholding€a€statute€requiring€county€registers€to€collectÐ ü L  Ðincreased€fees,€except€in€the€five€most€populous€counties€in€the€state);€òòBaker€v.€Stateóó,Ð è 8  Ð191€Tenn.€559,€235€S.W.2d€435€(1950)€(upholding€an€Act€prescribing€a€specialÐ Ô$  Ðmethod€of€selecting€juries€in€certain€counties);òò€Ô_ÔReasonoverÔ_Ô€v.€City€of€Memphisóó,€162Ð À  ÐTenn.€633,€39€S.W.2d€1029€(1931)€(upholding€Acts€authorizing€assessment€of€costsÐ ¬ü  Ðof€street€improvements€in€cities€of€more€than€stated€populations);€òòÔ_ÔDarnallÔ_Ô€v.Ð ˜è  ÐShapardóó,€156€Tenn.€544,€3€S.W.2d€661€(1928)€(upholding€an€Act€relating€to€theÐ „Ô  Ðlicensing€of€dogs€in€certain€counties).ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àWe€have€also€upheld€legislation€which€has€rendered€general€statutes€applicable€inÐ H˜ Ðonly€one€county,€where€we€found€a€rational€basis€for€the€classification.€€€òòSee€e.g.,Ð 4„ ÐShelby€County€Civil€Service€Merit€Bd.€v.€Livelyóó,€692€S.W.2d€15€(Tenn.€1985)Ð  p Ð(upholding€an€act€eliminating€authority€of€county€officials€to€terminate€deputies,Ð  \ Ðapplicable€solely€in€Shelby€County);€òòHarwell€v.€Leachóó,€672€S.W.2d€761€(Tenn.€1984)Ð øH Ð(upholding€a€statue€prohibiting€the€sale€of€fireworks,€applicable€only€in€KnoxÐ ä4 ÐCounty);€òòPeterson€v.€Grissomóó,€194€Tenn.€26,€250€S.W.2d€3€(1952)€(upholding€aÐ Ð  Ðð ðroad€law,ðð€applicable€to€only€one€county€by€virtue€of€population€classification);Ð ¼  ÐòòElliott€v.€Fuquaóó,€185€Tenn.€200,€204€S.W.2d€1016€(1947)€(upholding€a€statuteÐ ¨ø Ðprohibiting€the€sale€of€pyrotechnics,€applicable€only€in€Davidson€County);òò€KnoxÐ ”ä ÐCounty€v.€State€ex€rel.€Nighbertóó,€177€Tenn.€171,€147€S.W.2d€100€(1940)€(upholdingÐ €Ð Ðthe€Teacher€Tenure€Act,€applicable€to€Knox€County€alone);€òòcf.€Ô_ÔCanaleÔ_Ô€v.€Stevensonóó,Ð l¼ Ð224€Tenn.€578,€458€S.W.2d€797€(1970)€(invalidating€for€absence€of€rational€basis,Ð X ¨ Ða€statute€forbidding€ð ðfortune€telling,ðð€applicable€only€in€Shelby€County).ÐD!”Ð Ð  ÐÌòòHartóó,€801€S.W.2d€at€514„15.׃&×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð #l! ÐÌà  àIn€the€area€of€fixing€jurisdiction€of€courts,€the€Tennessee€Constitution€gives€wide€discretionÐ ô$D # Ðto€the€General€Assembly.€€ð ðThe€judicial€power€of€this€State€shall€be€vested€in€one€Supreme€CourtÐ à%0!$ Ðand€in€such€Circuit,€Chancery€or€other€inferior€Courts€as€the€legislature€shall€from€time€to€time,Ð Ì&"% Ðâ âordain€and€establish;€.€.€.ðð€€òòTenn.€Const.óó€Art€VI,€ðð€1.€€In€addition,€Article€VI,€section€8€provides€ð ðtheÐ ¸'#& Ðjurisdiction€of€the€Circuit,€Chancery€and€other€Inferior€Courts,€shall€be€as€now€established€by€law,Ð ° Ðuntil€changed€by€the€legislature.ððÐ œì Ðâ âÌà  àð ðIt€is€evident€from€the€provisions€of€the€Constitution€that€but€few€limitations€were€intendedÐ tÄ Ðto€be€placed€upon€the€power€of€the€legislature€to€create,€establish,€and€change€inferior€courts.ðð€Ð `° ÐòòHodge€v.€Stateóó,€135€Tenn.€525,€532,€188€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€203,€204€(1916).€€òòóóFurther,€section€8€of€Article€6€is€ð ðaÐ L œ Ðreservation€of€power€to€alter€the€jurisdiction€of€the€courts€established,€and€as€a€matter€of€course€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðenlarge€or€diminish,€or€else€there€could€be€no€alteration.ðð€€òòIdóó.€135€Tenn.€at€534,€188€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€at€205Ð $ t Ð(citing€òòJackson€v.€Nimmoóó,€71€Tenn.€597,€598€(1879)).Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThese€principles€have€been€applied€to€statutes€making€jurisdictional€changes€in€a€court€in€oneÐ è 8  Ðcounty€as€well€as€to€creation€and€jurisdiction€of€special€courts.€€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòWhite€v.€Garneróó,€192€Tenn.Ð Ô$  Ð429,€241€S.W.2d€518€(1951).€€In€òòWhiteóó,€the€Supreme€Court€considered€an€argument€that€an€actÐ À  Ðcreating€the€Law€Court€of€Humboldt€County€violated€Article€11,€section€8€of€the€TennesseeÐ ¬ü  ÐConstitution.€€The€Court€held,€first,€that€the€act€was€not€inconsistent€with€the€general€law€regardingÐ ˜è  Ðvenue€in€transitory€actions,€and€also€stated:Ð „Ô  ÐÌòòóóà8  àThere€is€nothing€in€the€Act€to€prohibit€a€citizen€of€the€jurisdiction€of€the€HumboldtÐ \¬ ÐLaw€Court€from€being€sued,€in€any€other€county€of€the€State,€if€found€within€theÐ H˜ ÐCounty.€€This€law€is€not€passed€for€the€benefit€of€any€particular€individual€or€groupÐ 4„ Ðof€individuals€but€is€purely€passed€to€localize€the€actions€relative€to€the€variousÐ  p Ðdistricts€of€the€County€and€the€citizens€thereof.€.€.€.€We€can€see€no€constitutionalÐ  \ Ðprohibition€against€such€an€Act.€€€ÐøHÐ Ð  ÐÌòòIdóó.€192€Tenn.€at€437,€241€S.W.2d€at€521.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àEven€more€pertinent€to€the€issue€herein,€in€òòRains€v.€Rainsóó,€58€Tenn.€App.€214,€428€S.W.2dÐ ¨ø Ð650€(1968),€the€appellant€challenged€the€jurisdiction€of€the€general€sessions€court€of€Overton€CountyÐ ”ä Ðto€hear€and€determine€divorce€cases€and€divest€title€to€real€estate€because€of€the€monetaryÐ €Ð Ðjurisdictional€limitation€generally€applicable€to€general€sessions€court.€€Prior€to€òòRainsóó,€this€court€hadÐ l¼ Ðrecognized€that€the€specific€general€sessions€court€at€issue€had€been€given€ð ðconcurrent€jurisdictionÐ X ¨ Ðwith€the€circuit€and€chancery€courts€in€matters€relating€to€divorceðð€and,€therefore,€was€ð ðwhen€actingÐ D!” Ðin€this€area€of€the€law,€a€court€of€general€jurisdiction.ðð€€òòLangford€v.€Langfordóó,€220€Tenn.€600,€603,Ð 0"€  Ð421€S.W.2d€632,€634€(1967).€€The€òòRainsóó€court€then€stated:Ð #l! Ðòòò òòòóóó óóóÌà8  àSection€1€Article€6€of€the€Constitution€of€Tennessee,€and€the€many€cases€annotatedÐ ô$D # Ðthereunder€in€Volume€1€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated,€adequately€disposes€of€anyÐ à%0!$ Ðquestion€of€the€authority€of€the€General€Assembly€to€make€allocation€of€judicialÐ Ì&"% Ðpowers€and€jurisdiction.€€Ð¸'#&Ð Ð  ÐÌòòRainsóó,€58€Tenn.€App.€at€223,€428€S.W.2d€at€655.€€Thus,€the€court€found€no€violation€of€the€SpecialÐ )à$( Ðâ âLegislation€Clause€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€in€an€act€giving€to€the€general€sessions€court€in€oneÐ |*Ì%) Ðcounty€concurrent€jurisdiction€with€circuit€court,€which€is€exactly€what€the€provision€beingÐ ° Ðchallenged€by€Mr.€Gunter€does.׃!×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Рœì Ðâ âÌà  àFinally,€inòò€City€of€Chattanoogaóó,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€upheld€against€a€ClassÐ tÄ ÐLegislation€Clause€challenge€an€act€allowing€municipalities€to€adopt€by€ordinance€state€trafficÐ `° Ðoffenses.€€The€court€found€that€the€purpose€of€the€legislation€was€ð ðeconomy,€efficiency,€andÐ L œ Ðexpeditious€handling€of€traffic€cases,ðð€which€provided€a€rational€basis.€€54€S.W.3d€at€277.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€that€the€provision€allowing€citizens€of€the€most€populous€county€or€countiesÐ  ` Ðto€bring€qualifying€GTLA€actions€in€general€sessions€courts€has€a€rational€basis.€€The€constitutionððsÐ ü L  Ðgrant€to€the€legislature€of€wide€discretion€to€set€and€alter€jurisdiction€of€courts€implies€the€kind€ofÐ è 8  Ðlegislative€decision€evidenced€by€the€challenged€provision,€designed€to€accommodate€the€needs€ofÐ Ô$  Ðcitizens€and€the€workload€of€courts,€with€the€goal€of€judicial€economy.€€Such€decisions€are€oftenÐ À  Ðmost€appropriately€made€on€the€basis€of€the€situation€existing€in€a€particular€locality.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThe€second€issue€of€constitutionality€we€must€address€is€Mr.€Gunterððs€argument€that€it€wouldÐ „Ô  Ðbe€unconstitutional€to€hold€that€the€filing€of€the€plaintiffððs€claim€in€òòFlowersóó€tolled€the€statute€ofÐ pÀ Ðlimitations,€but€that€his€filing€in€general€sessions€court€did€not€toll€the€statute€of€limitations.€€AsÐ \¬ Ðpreviously€stated,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€òòFlowers€óófollowed€the€provisions€of€a€statute,Ð H˜ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€16„11„102(b),€that€mandated€the€transfer€of€suits€filed€in€chancery€court€to€theÐ 4„ Ðcircuit€court€when€the€chancery€court€does€not€have€subject€matter€jurisdiction.€€The€Court€laterÐ  p Ðdistinguished€its€holding€in€òòFlowersóó€from€the€situation€where€no€statutory€authority€for€transferÐ  \ Ðexists.€€òòNortonóó,€895€S.W.2d€at€320.€€Similarly,€there€was€no€statute€authorizing€the€transfer€orÐ øH Ðð ðremovalðð€herein€at€the€time€this€action€was€filed€or€at€the€time€it€was€dismissed.€Therefore,€the€casesÐ ä4 Ðare€distinguishable,€and€this€argument€is€without€merit.Ð Ð  ÐÌà@ll)ìàIV.ˆÐ ¨ø ÐÌà  àWe€affirm€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€dismissing€this€complaint,€remand€the€case€for€anyÐ €Ð Ðfurther€proceedings€that€may€become€necessary,€and€tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellant,€Mr.Ð l¼ ÐGunter.Ð X ¨ ÐÌòòóóÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð $X" Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGEÐ ô$D # Ð