Attorneys: Appellant/Respondent: Zachary Thomas Hinkle Appellee/Petitioner: William Andrew Lockhart Trial Court: Van Buren County Circuit Court Trial Judge: Larry B. Stanley, Jr. Argument Type: Oral Argument This case involves the challenge of a judicial district’s local rule of court, which requires a bonding agent to give notice to a defendant of all his or her court appearances and to be present at all of the defendant’s court appearances. Here, Cumberland Bail Bonding failed to appear at a defendant’s hearing. As a result, the trial court suspended Cumberland’s bonding privileges pending a hearing. Cumberland filed a motion for reinstatement of bonding privileges, which was denied, and Cumberland appealed. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the trial court’s order suspending Cumberland. It held that, while the notification requirement of the rule is within the trial court’s “inherent power” to regulate bonding companies, the appearance requirement is “arbitrary, capricious, and illegal” because it was “not apparent why the bonding company’s presence” is required at each appearance. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the State argues that the appearance requirement is neither arbitrary nor capricious because “[t]he bondsman’s presence in court ensures that all parties timely receive relevant information about a defendant.” Additionally, the State argues that the local rule does not conflict with any statute or rule and that the statutes regulating bonding agents did not abrogate the court’s inherent authority to regulate bonding agents through the local rule. Cumberland argues that the local rule is inconsistent with Tennessee statute because “it modifies the statutory obligations of bonding companies” and that the appearance requirement is arbitrary and capricious.