42.01 Consolidation. When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before a court, the court may order all the actions consolidated or heard jointly, and may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
Rule 42.Consolidation: Separate Trials
Last amended July 1, 1997 · Last verified July 2, 2026
In one sentenceRule 42 lets a court consolidate or jointly hear actions sharing a common question of law or fact to save time and expense, and separately lets a court, for convenience or to avoid prejudice, order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, third-party claim, or issue.
Full Text of Rule 42
42.02 Separate Trials. The court for convenience or to avoid prejudice may in jury trials order a separate trial of any one or more claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, or third-party claims, or issues on which a jury trial has been waived by all parties. For the same purposes the court may, in nonjury trials, order a separate trial of any one or more claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, third-party claims, or issues.
Advisory Commission Comments
Advisory Commission Comments [1997].
Former constitutional concerns about a "right" to have a general jury verdict on all issues no longer exist in light of Ennix v. Clay, 703 S.W.2d 137 (Tenn. 1986).
Amendment History
- Amended by order effective July 1, 1997.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 42.01 lets a court consolidate pending actions, or hear them jointly, whenever they share a common question of law or fact, and lets the court manage the consolidated proceedings in whatever way avoids unnecessary cost or delay. Before the rule existed, Tennessee allowed consolidation only in a handful of statutory categories — lien disputes, delinquent-tax suits, municipal annexation cases among them — and Rule 42.01 generalized that narrow practice into a tool available whenever efficiency calls for it.
Consolidation does not merge the underlying actions into one case. Each stays its own action with its own parties, and a court has to keep that distinction in mind: consolidating cases does not cure a venue problem in one of them, and a judgment resolving one consolidated action is not automatically treated the same as if every consolidated case had been decided together. That distinction has tripped up litigants who assumed consolidation folded separate docket numbers into a single proceeding for every purpose, including appeal deadlines — a point worth double-checking before relying on how a case was captioned after consolidation.
Rule 42.01 also allows a court to try one of several consolidated cases first, as a kind of pilot case, with the result binding the others — but only as to parties who took part in that pilot trial. A 1997 amendment removed an older requirement that a jury trying consolidated cases resolve every issue in every case together, bringing Tennessee practice in line with the more flexible approach that already let a court try only part of a consolidated group of claims to a single jury.
Rule 42.02 works in the other direction: instead of joining cases together, it lets a court split a single case apart, ordering a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, third-party claim, or issue, whenever doing so serves convenience or avoids prejudice to a party. A separate trial under Rule 42.02 is not the same as severance under Rule 21 — a separate trial does not change who the parties are or make a partial result immediately appealable, while severance splits a case into independent actions. Confusing the two has led parties to appeal a separate-trial ruling as though it were final, only to have the appeal dismissed as premature.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does consolidating two cases merge them into a single lawsuit?
No. Rule 42.01 lets a court consolidate or jointly hear cases that share a common question, but each action keeps its own identity, parties, and procedural history — consolidation is a matter of efficient case management, not merger.
What is the difference between a separate trial under Rule 42.02 and severance under Rule 21?
A separate trial under Rule 42.02 splits how claims are tried without changing the parties or the case’s finality — nothing becomes appealable on its own. Severance under Rule 21 divides a case into independent actions that can proceed, and be appealed, on their own.
Can a court try one of several consolidated cases first and apply the result to the rest?
Yes, through what is sometimes called a pilot trial under Rule 42.01, but the result only binds parties who took part in that first trial — it does not automatically bind parties who were left out of it.
Source & verification. The rule text and Advisory Commission Comments are reproduced verbatim from the
official Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure (Tenn. R. Civ. P. 42). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Tennessee (Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 16-3-402 to 16-3-407, 16-3-601). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 2, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: consolidation of actionsseparate trialsseverance distinguishedpilot trial
Advisory Commission Comments.
42.01: Prior to the adoption of these Rules, statutes permitted consolidation of suits in certain types of cases, including suits involving (a) mechanics' and materialmen's liens, Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-11-132, (b) delinquent taxes, Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-5-2409, and (c) municipal annexation, Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-51-103. The Committee felt that the consolidation of actions or the hearing of them jointly should be encouraged in order to avoid unnecessary delay and expense and the duplication of effort.
42.02: This Rule allows the court, for convenience or to avoid prejudice, to order a separate trial of any one or more claims, cross claims, counterclaims or third-party claims.