WPC& J>Ǿ#lelG6~/2Oo}p_X?6EH;FF;uۖF-պWįt$;_4@6.1KX0Zir'. I/yGr$xE}AYBnĒcp8;Gpm{=,eFYj[(۞R2g}Gx]%귇#"B|g)pT|u$m+Q#}. `tNo4CXCZ;nhSϼ*tw}ƙ*9*&@#-}1 m ;?])tgQYĮ͓!$XA?]?0+4)J/ 3]l#a DD7cM@;17%U[} ~ C˛<0s %aP-ڔ% ԄӟF*# LUNW % 0(b U:w@4Ymw| 0l 0D_U: U: L U:e e e e e  B AQ  0D 0D 0Dcc D/ B D3HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($- -, AZ"Arial Regular UUDDӀy&3|x m  E XX     1    3  EIn1935thelegislatureamendedthebeerlawstoapplytobeverageshavinganalcoholic  contentofnotmorethanfivepercent(5%)byweight.Tenn.PublicActs1935,170.((3$ !      0  (#$  0   ""  XyR XXX  XXyR   Ad FILEDXyR X   July16,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular,K AZ"Arial Regular B  E XX3  E     2    'XDXX'Wedonotconcedethatthecityhassuchabsolutepower.Wethinkthereisathresholdof  reasonablenessthatmustbereached,asthecourtrecognizedinThePantry,Inc.v.CityofPigeon  Forge,681S.W.2d23(Tenn.1984)eventhoughthatcasedidnotdealwithlimitationsonthenumber l ofpermits.,K AZ"Arial Regular d!"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxdP Pd'dxd !  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T    XX  7XXdXXd7r )<,(j 8` `@E` 8ttxP,  r@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEt )>.*jx` `@E` 8ttxP  tߛ@(ATNASHVILLE XXԈ  BRENTDIXON,d/b/a   8   )   CHAPARRALSSTEAKHOUSE, 8   )     0      8   ) Plaintiff/Appellee,   8   )     0      8   )  AppealNo.     0      8   )  01A019809CH00484 x  МVS.  0      8   ) h    0      8   )  LawrenceChancery X|    0      8   )  No.901398 Hl  МLAWRENCEBURGBEERBOARDand  )   @      H!  #  8\ THECITYOFLAWRENCEBURG,  ) (L   0      8   ) Defendant/Appellant. 8   ) , @* * APPEALEDFROMTHECHANCERYCOURTOFLAWRENCECOUNTY@__!ATLAWRENCEBURG,TENNESSEE@ THEHONORABLEJIMT.HAMILTON,JUDGE̛̜JOEW.HENRY,JR.DEBORAHR.SOWELLHENRY,HENRY&SPEER,P.C.119SouthFirstStreetP.O.Box458̜Pulaski,Tennessee38478 AttorneysforPlaintiff/AppelleeALANC.BETZ22PublicSquareP.O.Box488̜Lawrenceburg,Tennessee38464 AttorneyforDefendant/Appellant@$AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED  0      8      @ BENH.CANTRELL,  0      8      @ PRESIDINGJUDGE,M.S.CONCUR:KOCH,J.̜COTTRELL,J.Ӝ  XX <6:9 Л@tt(OPINION XX Ԉ    0 TheChanceryCourtofLawrenceCountyheldthatLawrenceburgsbeerordinancewasarbitrarybecauseitlimitedtheholdersoflicensestosellbeertothosenamedintheordinance.Weaffirm.@- I.   0  ̜  0 LawrenceburgsCityCommissionhasconsistentlytakenahardlineontheproliferationofbeeroutletswithinthecity.Between1965and1994theϜLawrenceburgbeerordinancelimitedbeersalesinsidethecitytosixprivateclubsnamedintheordinance.In1994,whenthenumberofbeerpermitshaddecreasedtofive,thecityannexedanareainwhichtherewerefiveholdersofbeerpermitsissuedbyLawrenceCounty.ThecCityCommissionamendedthebeerordinancetoallowthefivepermitholdersintheannexedareaandthefiveexistingestablishmentstocontinuetosellbeer.Theamendedordinancespecificallynamedthecurrentpermitholdersandspecificallyprohibitedtheissuanceofanyotherbeerpermits.  0 By1997oneoftheoriginalprivateclubsinthecityhadmovedtotheϜcounty,andthecityhadannexedthreeadditionalareastotheEast,Northwest,andSouth.Theseareascontainedthreeestablishmentssellingbeerundercountypermits.TheCityamendeditsbeerordinanceoncemoretoallowthosethreeoutletstocontinuetosellbeer.Theordinancelistedallthepermitholdersbyname,andprovidedthatthenumberofpermitsinthecitywouldthereafterberestrictedinnumbertothetwelvealreadyholdingpermits.Italsoprovidedthataqualifiedpurchaserofanyofthebusinessesholdingpermitscouldbeissuedapermittooperateinthesamelocation,butifanyoftheholderswentoutofbusinessfortwelveconsecutivemonths,orfailedtosellbeerfortwelveconsecutivemonths,thenumberofpermitsallowedinthecitywouldbereducedaccordingly. L;p58 Ї  0 In1998BrentDixon,theoperatorofChaparralsSteakHouseinϜLawrenceburg,appliedforapermittosellbeeronhisrestaurantpremises.TheBeerBoardrejectedtheapplicationbecauseoftherestrictionsinthebeerordinance.Mr.DixonfiledapetitionforcertiorariintheChanceryCourtofLawrenceCounty,andthechancellorheldthattheCitycouldnotrestricttheissuanceofbeerpermitstothosespecificallynamedintheordinance.@- II.      0 TheTwentyFirstAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitutionendednationalprohibition,1,butitgavebacktothestatesthepowertoregulatethetransportationorimportationofintoxicatingliquorsfor deliveryoruseinthestates,2.In1993Tennesseerespondedtotheimpendingendofthe nobleexperimentbyallowingthesaleof3.2percentbeerifthesellerobtainedapermitfromacityorϜcounty.Tenn.PublicActs1933,69;McHenryv.State,80S.W.2d655(Tenn.  @ 1935).  0 Thebeerlawshaveremainedremarkablyconstantsincethattime.   %  1      ׀ %" Citieshavethepowertoregulate,byordinance,thesaleofbeersoastopromotethepublichealth,morals,andsafetyoftheircitizens.Tenn.CodeAnn.575108(a)(1).Thisstatute vestseachmunicipalitywithanextremelybroadpoweranddiscretionintheregulationandcontroloverthesaleofbeerwithinthecitylimits.Frittsv.Wallace, <-`'* 723S.W.2d948at949(Tenn.1987).Thepowercannot,however,beexercisedinanarbitraryanddiscriminatorymanner.Id.Wheretheordinancearbitrarilydenies 0 +. anapplicantapermit,thecourtsmaygrantthepermit.ThePantry,Inc.v.Cityof 2-0 PigeonForge,681S.W.2d23(Tenn.1984). 4.2  604   0 Acitymayprohibitthesaleofbeeraltogether,Grubbv.Morristown,203  S.W.2d593(Tenn.1947),oritmaysetaspecificlimittothenumberofbeeroutlets.Ketnerv.Clabo,225S.W.2d54(Tenn.1949);DeCarov.CityofCollierville,373   S.W.2d466(Tenn.1963).Thecourtshavenotpaidmuchattentiontohowtheruleagainstthearbitraryexerciseofthecityspowerimpactsthecitysrighttolimitthenumberofbeeroutlets.InDeCarotheCourtseemedtosaythattheordinance <`  limitingthenumberofoutletswasvirtuallyimmunefromreviewbythecourts.InKetnertheCourtwasalittlelessabsolute,foritimpliedlyrecognizedthata   constitutionalproblemmightbecreatedbyanarbitrarylimitonthenumberofpermits.TheCourtsaid:8 80 ! !  WhentheCityauthoritydeterminesunderthepolicepower,thattheinterestofthemunicipalitywillbebestservedbylimitingthenumberofretailoutletsforthesaleofbeer,itseemsclearfrommanycasescollectedin124A.L.R.,atpage830etseq.,thatthedecisionofthecityauthorityisfinal,andnotsubjecttojudicialreview.Further,fromtheseauthorities,itisclearthatnoconstitutionalrightofarejectedapplicantisinfringed,sinceallcitizenshaveanequalrighttoapply,andthecityauthority,initsdiscretionunderareasonableexerciseofthepolicepowerandthepreservationoflawandorder,maylimitthenumberofapplicationstobegranted. 0 0  225S.W.2dat56.  0 WethinktheKetnercasecontainsthekeytoourpresentdilemma. ("% AssumingthatacityhastheabsoluterighttolimitthenumberofbeerpermitswithinϜitsboundaries,  %  2      כitisanarbitraryexerciseofthatpowertolimittheeligibleapplicants L,p&) tothosenamedintheordinance.Allcitizensshouldhaveanequalrighttoapply.Thatrightisdeniedwhentheordinancerestrictsthenumberandthendesignatesthatnumberofpermitholdersbyname.  3-1   0 Anotherfactthatbearsonthequestionofwhethertheordinanceis arbitraryistheprovisionintheLawrenceburgordinancethatautomaticallyreducesthenumberofoutletswhenapermitholderdoesnotsellbeerforaperiodoftwelvemonths.Iftwelveoutletsdonotadverselyimpactthepublichealth,morals,orsafetyofthecitizensofLawrenceburg,itseemstousthatitisarbitrarytoautomaticallyϜreducethenumbertoelevenwhenonepermitholdergoesoutofbusinessandstaysoutofbusinessfortwelvemonths.  0 Werecognizethatwemaybeaccusedofcreatingameaninglessrightinallthecitizenstocompeteforthelimitednumberofpermitswhenallavailablepermitsarealreadyheld.Wedonotknowofanycasewhereonepermitholderhasbeen bumpedinfavorofanewapplicant.Butthereisnopropertyrightinapermittosellbeer.Sparksv.BeerCommitteeofBlountCounty,339S.W.2d23(Tenn. \ 1960).Itisalimitedprivilege,andonceproperlyconferred,itmaynotbearbitrarilytakenaway,Wisev.McCanless,191S.W.2d169(Tenn.1945),butitisstillsubject  @ toareasonableexerciseofthepolicepower.RivergateWine&Liquorsv. !  МGoodlettsville,647S.W.2d631(Tenn.1983).Thus,anordinancethatidentifiesbeer #  permitholdersbynamearbitrarilytakesawaytherightoftheothercitizenstocompeteforthelimitednumberofpermitsallowedbytheordinance.  0 ThejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmedandthecauseisremandedtotheChanceryCourtofLawrenceCountyforanyfurtherproceedingsnecessary.TaxthecostsonappealtotheCityofLawrenceburg.̜  0      8     _____________________________  0      8     BENH.CANTRELL,  0      8     PRESIDINGJUDGE,M.S.̜ L;p59 CONCUR:_____________________________WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE̜_____________________________PATRICIAJ.COTTRELL,JUDGE̜   0  Л  mXXb @.INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @(ATNASHVILLE XbXmԈ  BRENTDIXON,d/b/a   8   )   CHAPARRALSSTEAKHOUSE, 8   )     0      8   ) Plaintiff/Appellee,   8   )     0      8   )  AppealNo.     0      8   )  01A019809CH00484   МVS.  0      8   ) x    0      8   )  LawrenceChancery h    0      8   )  No.901398 X|  МLAWRENCEBURGBEERBOARDand  )   @      H!  #  Hl  THECITYOFLAWRENCEBURG,  )  Affirmedand 8\   0      8   )  Remanded (L  Defendant/Appellant. 8   ) < mXXb @uu'JUDGMENT   XbXm  0 Thiscausecameontobeheardupontherecordonappealfromthe $H ChanceryCourtofLawrenceCounty,briefsandargumentofcounsel;uponconsiderationwhereof,thisCourtisoftheopinionthatinthedecreeoftheChancellorthereisnoreversibleerror.  0 InaccordancewiththeopinionoftheCourtfiledhere,itis,therefore,orderedanddecreedbythisCourtthatthedecreeisaffirmed.ThecauseisremandedtotheChanceryCourtofLawrenceCountyfortheenforcementofthedecreeandforthecollectionofthecostsaccruedbelow.  0 CostsofthisappealaretaxedagainstthecCityofLawrenceburg,Principal,andAlanC.Betz,Surety,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.  0      8 _____________________________________  0      8 BENH.CANTRELL,PRESIDINGJUDGE,M.S.  0      8 _____________________________________  0      8 WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE  0      8 _____________________________________  0      8 PATRICIAJ.COTTRELL,JUDGE