ÿWPC& …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ 0lH 0D´ 0Jø 0TB 0^– 0hô 0r\ 0|Î 0†J 0Ð 1u` 0dÕ B9U>VB)”DC½ AMU*MÝwcT!·QØ D3)€\v~Ü 0@ZvÓš AOm$Ƽ$ 0D‚% D/Æ% Bõ%˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ Už Ÿ   ¡ ¢££¤¥Ó€¯DÒ 3|x¯((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ÓÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌMay€9,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó YÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€Act€was€amended€in€April€1990€to€read:€ð ð[i]t€is€the€intent€of€the€general€assembly€thatÏthis€chapter€shall€not€apply€retroactively€to€releases€or€other€events€that€occurred€prior€to€July€1,Ï1988.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€68„215„102(c).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€portion€of€the€chancellorððs€decision€is€set€forth€verbatim€in€the€òòò òMemphisÏPublishingó óóó€opinion.€€òòò òMemphis€Publishingóóó ó,€1993€WL€476292€at€*2.Ì GÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝPursuant€to€Rule€24(b)€T.R.A.P.,€MPC€submitted€a€ð ðstatement€of€issues€to€be€presentedÏon€appeal,ðð€identifying€the€issues€it€intended€to€present€for€appellate€review€as€follows:ÌÌà8 àà à1.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€holding€that€appellant€had€no€right€toÏreimbursement€from€the€Tennessee€Petroleum€Underground€Storage€Tank€FundÏ(ð ðFundðð)€under€chapter€984€of€the€Tennessee€Public€Acts€of€1988€(the€ð ðOriginalÏActðð).Ìà8 àà à2.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€construing€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€68„53„101€to€„€128€(the€ð ðActðð),€as€amended€in€1990,€to€limit€reimbursement€from€theÏFund€to€expenses€incurred€in€connection€with€releases€that€occurred€after€July€1,Ï1988,€the€effective€date€of€the€Original€Act.Ìà8 àà à3.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€the€1990€amendment€(1990ÏTenn.€Pub.€Acts€399,€ch.€855,€ðð€1)€to€the€Original€Act€is€not€unconstitutionalÏretrospective€legislation.Ìà8 àà à4.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€relying€upon€inadmissible€and€irrelevantÏevidence€of€legislative€intent€in€aid€of€its€construction€of€the€Act€and€the€OriginalÏAct.Ìà8 àà à5.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€MPC€is€not€ð ðfund€eligibleððÏunder€the€Act.Ìà8 àà à6.€€Whether€respondents€acted€arbitrarily€and€capriciously€in€denyingÏappellantððs€application€for€reimbursement€from€the€Fund€based€on€their€inconsistentÏapplication€of€the€Act€respondentððs€regulations.Ìà8 àà à7.€€Whether€respondentsðð€inconsistent€application€of€the€Act€andÏrespondentsðð€regulations€to€appellant€is€unconstitutional€in€that€it€violatedÏappellantððs€Tennessee€and€federal€constitutional€rights€to€equal€protection.€€Ì 'ÿÿdxd vÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€Rule€4(4)€of€the€Supreme€Court€Rules€provides:€ÌÌà8 àò òPUBLICATION€OF€OPINIONS„„CITATION€OF€UNPUBLISHEDÏOPINIONSó óÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà àNo€opinion€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€or€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€shallÏbe€published€until€after€the€time€has€expired€for€the€filing€of€an€application€forÏpermission€to€appeal.€€If€this€Court€grants€the€application,€or€denies€the€application,Ïconcurring€in€result€only,€the€opinion€of€the€intermediate€court€shall€not€beÏpublished.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ` Ü` p”XÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE,€WESTERN€SECTIONÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌà@ à_______________________________________________________ÌÌó óà à)ò òÌMEMPHIS€PUBLISHING€COMPANY,ó óà à)à àDavidson€County€Chancery€CourtÌà à)à àDocket€No.€92„1435„IÌ€€€€€Petitioner/Appellee.à à)Ìà à)ÌVS.à à)à àC.€A.€NO.€01A01„9607„CH„00300Ìà à)Ìò òœÙ€€ÙßR€$&#A1-j|Jþ^` ç `€€@ÿRß›TENNESSEE€PETROLEUMó óà à)Ìò òUNDERGROUND€STORAGE€TANKó óà à)Ìò òBOARD€and€J.€W.€LUNA,€ASó óà à)Ìò òCOMMISSIONER€OF€TENNESSEEó óà à)Ìò òDEPARTMENT€OF€ENVIRONMENTó óà à)Ìò òAND€CONSERVATIONó ó.à à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Respondents/Appellants.à à)Ìà à)Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌFrom€the€Chancery€Court€of€Davidson€County€at€Nashville.Ìò òHonorable€Irvin€H.€Kilcrease,€Chancellor€ó óÌÌÌÌò òJohn€Knox€Walkupó ó,€Attorney€General€and€ReporterÌò òBarry€Turneró ó,€Deputy€Attorney€GeneralÌAttorneys€for€Respondents/Appellants.ÌÌÌÌò òS.€Russell€Headrickó ó,€Ìò òStephen€P.€Haleó ó,€Ìò òLucian€T.€Peraó ó,€Ìò òKathy€Laughter€Laizureó ó,€ÌARMSTRONG,€ALLEN,€PREWITT,€GENTRY,€JOHNSTON€&€HOLMES,€ÌMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€Petitioner/Appellee.ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:ÌÌò òAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.€ó ó:€(Concurs)Ìò òLILLARD,€J.€ó ó:€œ(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓÓ` Ü` ˜XÓà àThis€case€is€on€appeal€for€the€second€time.€€The€Tennessee€Petroleum€UndergroundÏStorage€Tank€Board€and€J.€W.€Luna,€as€Commissioner€of€the€Tennessee€Department€ofÏEnvironment€and€Conservation€(hereinafter€ð ðBoardðð€or€ð ðAppellantsðð),€have€appealed€from€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€declaring€the€appellee,€Memphis€Publishing€Company€(MPC),€eligibleÏfor€reimbursement€from€the€Tennessee€Petroleum€Underground€Storage€Tank€Fund€(Fund)€forÏremediation€expenses€incurred€as€a€result€of€a€release€from€its€underground€storage€tank€in€AugustÏ1987.€€The€trial€courtððs€decision€came€after€remand€from€the€Middle€Section€of€this€Court€inÏòòò òMemphis€Publishing€Company€v.€Tennessee€Petroleum€Underground€StorageÏTank€Boardó óóó,€No.€01A01„9305„CH„00202,€1993€WL€476292€(Tenn.€App.€Nov.€19,€1993),Ïòòò òperm.€app.€deniedóóó ó,€c.r.o.€€There,€the€court€confronted€the€issue€of€whether€MPC€had€a€right€toÏFund€reimbursement€under€the€Tennessee€Petroleum€Underground€Storage€Tank€Act€(Act),ÏT.C.A.€ðð€68„215„101€òòò òet€seq.óóó ó,€as€originally€enacted.€× ƒ' ××  ×€€It€was€argued€that€MPC€had€no€right€toÏreimbursement€because€its€release€occurred€prior€to€the€effective€date€of€the€Act,€July€1,€1988.€ÏThis€Court,€speaking€through€Judge€Lewis,€held€that€the€Act,€as€originally€enacted,€ð ðwas€intendedÏto€cover,€from€a€Fund€reimbursement€perspective,€all€releases€regardless€of€date.ðð€€Upon€remand,Ïthe€trial€court€held€the€court€of€appealððs€decision€ð ðlaw€of€the€caseðð€and€ruled€as€hereinabove€setÏforth.€€It€is€urged€on€appeal€that€the€decision€rendered€in€òòò òMemphis€Publishingó óóó€is€not€the€ð ðlaw€ofÏthe€caseðð€regarding€MPCððs€Fund€eligibility€and€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€so€holding.€€For€reasonsÏhereinafter€stated,€we€affirm.ÌÌà àThe€underlying€facts€of€this€case€are€amply€set€forth€in€òòò òMemphis€Publishingó óóó.€ÍFor€our€purposes,€we€reiterate€here€as€follows:€In€September€1990,€MPC€filed€an€application€withÏthe€Board€for€reimbursement€from€the€UST€Fund€for€assessment€and€remediation€expensesÏincurred€in€connection€with€a€release€at€its€UST€site.€€MPC€discovered€and€reported€the€releaseÏprior€to€July€1,€1988,€but€the€majority€of€its€assessment€and€remediation€efforts€occurredÏafterwards.€€After€a€contested€case€hearing,€the€Board€denied€MPCððs€claim€and€issued€a€finalÏdecision€and€order€finding€that€MPC€was€not€Fund€eligible€because€its€release€had€occurred€prior€toÏthe€Actððs€effective€date.€€MPC€sought€judicial€review€in€the€chancery€court,€requesting,€òòò òinter€aliaóóó ó,Ïthat€the€court€declare€the€amendment€to€the€original€Act€violative€of€both€the€FourteenthÏAmendment€and€state€constitution€and€representative€of€prohibited€retrospective€legislation.€€TheÏchancellor€perceived€the€issue€before€it€as€ð ð[w]hether€the€provisions€of€T.C.A.€ðð€68„215„102(c),Ïwhich€were€part€of€the€1990€amendment€to€the€UST€Act,€constitute€unconstitutional€retrospectiveÏlegislation?ðð€€In€affirming€the€decision€of€the€Board,€the€chancellor€held,€in€part,€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àThe€UST€Act€became€effective€July€1,€1988.€.€.€.€ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà àThe€UST€Act€was€amended€in€April€of€1990.€€TheÏamendment€supports€the€legislative€intent€that€the€UST€Act€is€not€toÏapply€to€releases€which€occurred€prior€to€€the€effective€date€of€JulyÏ1,€1988.€€It€states€that€ð ð[i]t€is€the€intent€of€the€general€assembly€thatÏthis€chapter€shall€not€apply€retroactively€to€releases€or€other€eventsÏthat€occurred€prior€to€July€1,€1988.ðð€€òòò òSeeóóó ó€T.C.A.€ðð€68„215„102(c).ÌÌà8 àà àThe€petitioner€submits€that€it€had€a€vested€right€to€claimÏreimbursement€from€the€fund€established€by€the€UST€Act,€and€thatÏthe€1990€amendment€impairs€this€right.€€The€provisions€of€the€ActÏestablishing€the€UST€Fund€create€new€substantive€rights,€and€cannotÏbe€retroactively€applied.€€òòò òSee€Anderson€v.€Memphis€HousingÏAuthorityóóó ó,€534€S.W.2d€125,€127€(Tenn.€App.€1975).€€TheÏprovision€added€by€the€1990€amendment€simply€confirmed€andÏratified€the€original€intent€of€the€General€Assembly€that€the€UST€ActÏis€not€to€be€given€retrospective€application.ÌÌà8 àà àIt€is€undisputed€that€MPC€discovered€and€reported€theÏrelease€from€its€underground€storage€tank€in€August€of€1987.€€TheÏDepartment€has€consistently€followed€its€policy€of€using€the€date€ofÏthe€discovery€of€the€release€as€the€applicable€date€under€the€USTÏAct.€€MPCððs€actions€took€place€well€before€the€effective€date€of€theÏUST€Act€on€July€1,€1988.€€This€Court€concludes€that€MPC€neverÏhad€a€vested€right€to€claim€reimbursement€from€the€fund€because€theÍAct€does€not€apply€to€releases,€like€MPCððs,€that€occurred€prior€to€theÏJuly€1,€1988€effective€date€of€the€Act.× ƒ( ××  ×€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àMPC€appealed€from€the€chancellorððs€decision× ƒ) ××  ×€and,€as€noted,€this€Court,€uponÏreview,€reversed.€€We€quote€from€the€courtððs€decision€in€òòò òMemphis€Publishing€óóó óas€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àMPC€presents€the€following€issue€for€our€consideration:Ïð ðWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€holding€that€MPC€had€no€right€toÏreimbursement€from€the€Fund€under€the€Original€Act,ðð€whichÏbecame€effective€1€July€1988.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà àWe€find€nothing€in€the€sweeping€nature€of€the€perceivedÏproblems€addressed€by€the€Original€Act,€the€description€of€theÏcomprehensive€regulatory€mechanism,€nor€the€description€of€theÏbroad€purposes€of€the€Fund,€to€suggest€or€imply€any€date€limitationÏon€the€ð ðreleasesðð€covered€under€the€Original€Act.ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà àThe€enforcement€authority€created€by€the€Original€Act€is€notÏlimited€to€releases€commencing€after€its€effective€date.€.€.€.€ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà àBoth€the€Board€and€the€Chancellor,€in€determining€that€MPCÏwas€not€entitled€to€recover,€relied€on€the€1990€Amendment€which€setÏforth€the€general€assemblyððs€ð ðintentðð€to€restrict€recovery€to€releasesÏor€other€events€which€occurred€after€1€July€1988.ÌÌà8 àà àWhile€a€later€general€assemblyððs€understanding€of€what€anÏAct€intended€is€not€binding,€it€is€entitled€to€deference.€€òòò òSee,ÏUnited€States€v.€Stauffer€Chem.€Co.óóó ó,€684€F.2d€1174,€1187Ï(6th€Cir.€1982),€òòò òaffððdóóó ó,€464€U.S.€165€(1984).€€LegislativeÏinterpretation€of€a€prior€statute€is€entitled€to€respectful€consideration,Ïbut€is€not€controlling€on€the€courts.€€òòò òInterstate€Life€&€AccidentÏCo.€v.€Huntóóó ó,€171€Tenn.€119,€126,€102€S.W.2d€55,€56€(1937).ÌÌà8 àà àFollowing€the€fundamental€rule€of€statutory€construction,Ïthis€court€must€ascertain€and€give€effect€to€the€intention€or€purposeÏof€the€legislature€as€expressed€in€the€statute.€€òòò òParkridgeÏHospital,€Inc.€v.€Woodsóóó ó,€561€S.W.2d€754,€755€(Tenn.€1978).ÌÌà8 àà àWe€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€legislature€intended€to€cover€allÏreleases€without€regard€to€the€date€on€which€they€may€haveÏoccurred.ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€€we€find€nothing€in€the€effective€date€provision€of€theÏOriginal€Act€to€suggest€that€it€was€not€to€be€applied€to€releases€orÏevents€occurring€prior€to€1€July€1988.€.€.€.€€Significantly,€neither€ofÏthe€two€sections€of€the€Original€Act€that€establishes€the€Fund€andÏgrants€to€MPC€and€others€a€right€to€reimbursement€for€certainÏremediation€expenses,€in€any€way€limits€the€availability€ofÏreimbursement€to€those€expenses€relating€to€releases€commencingÏbefore€or€after€a€certain€date.€.€.€.€ÌÌà8 àà àThe€Original€Act€was€intended€to€cover,€from€a€FundÏreimbursement€perspective,€all€releases€regardless€of€date.€.€.€.€€ThisÏissue€is€sustained.ÌÌà8 àà àBecause€of€our€holding€regarding€this€issue,€we€pretermit€allÏother€issues€raised€by€MPC.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€inÏaffirming€the€decision€of€the€Board€and€Commissioner€is€reversedÏand€the€cause€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€further,€necessaryÏproceedings.ÌÌÌÌòòò òÓÓMemphis€Publishingóóó ó,€1993€WL€476292€at€*4„7.ÌÌà àThe€Boardððs€application€for€permission€to€appeal€to€the€supreme€court€was€denied,Ïconcurring€in€results€only.€€Upon€remand€to€the€chancery€court,€MPC€filed€a€motion€ð ðfor€orderÏreversing€final€decision€and€order€of€the€[Board]€and€remanding€cause€to€Tennessee€Department€ofÏEnvironment€and€Conservationðð€with€the€directive€that€the€Department€reimburse€MPC€itsÏreasonable€and€necessary€remediation€expenses€from€the€Fund.€€An€ð ðagreed€orderðð€was€thenÏentered€with€the€trial€court€wherein€the€parties€waive€remand€back€to€the€Board€and€agree€to€submitÏthe€matter,€upon€the€existing€administrative€record,€to€the€chancery€courtððs€jurisdiction€ð ðto€resolveÏthe€issues€remaining.ðð€€Pursuant€to€the€order,€the€issues€to€be€resolved€were:€ð ð(1)€whether€MPCððsÏright€to€reimbursement€from€the€[Fund]€vested€prior€to€the€effective€date€of€[ðð€68„215„102(c)]€andÏ(2)€whether€MPCððs€application€for€reimbursement€is€fund€eligible€under€applicable€law.ðð€€ÌÌà àUpon€review,€the€chancellor€entered€its€ð ðFinal€Judgment€and€Order€After€Remand,ððÏdeclaring€MPCððs€application€for€reimbursement€Fund€eligible€and€remanding€the€matter€to€theÏBoard€for€review€of€MPCððs€application€for€the€sole€purpose€of€determining€the€reasonableness€ofÏits€claimed€expenses.€€The€court€found:€ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àMPC€asserts€that€the€Court€of€[Appealsðð]€opinion€is€the€ð ðlawÏof€the€caseðð€on€remand.€€This€Court€agrees.€€The€decision€of€theÏCourt€of€Appeals€makes€it€clear€that€the€petitionerððs€release€is€to€beÏcovered€regardless€of€the€date€on€which€the€release€occurred.€€TheÏSupreme€Courtððs€concurrence€ð ðin€results€onlyðð€does€not€change€thisÏfact.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àAppellants€identify€the€issues€on€this€appeal€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à1.€€Is€this€Courtððs€prior€decision€ð ðLaw€of€the€Caseðð€when€inÏresponse€to€an€application€for€permission€to€appeal€that€decision,€theÏsupreme€court€denied€the€application,€but€concurred€only€in€theÏresult€reached€by€this€Court?ÌÌà8 àà à2.€€If€this€Court€implicitly€ruled€in€its€prior€decision€thatÏ[MPC]€had€a€vested€right€to€reimbursement€that€is€unconstitutionallyÍimpaired€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€68„215„102(c),€is€this€implicitÏconstitutional€ruling€ð ðLaw€of€the€Caseðð?ÌÌà8 àà à3.€€Did€the€contingent€statutory€right€to€reimbursementÏconferred€by€the€retroactive€application€of€the€UST€fund€in€1988Ïbecome€a€constitutionally€recognized€ð ðvested€rightðð€before€ðð€68„215„102(c)€went€into€effect?ÌÌà8 àà à4.€€In€1990,€the€general€assembly€amended€the€UST€Act€byÏadding€ðð€68„215„102(c),€which€expressly€provides€that€no€provisionÏof€the€Act€shall€apply€retroactively€to€a€release€that€occurred€prior€toÏJuly€1,€1988.€€Does€this€statute€unconstitutionally€impair€vestedÏrights€in€violation€of€the€state€or€federal€constitution?ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àIt€is€the€Boardððs€position€that€the€prior€decision€of€this€Court€cannot€constitute€theÏð ðlaw€of€the€caseðð€for€reasons€that:€(1)€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€disposed€of€its€application€forÏpermission€to€appeal€by€concurring€only€in€the€results€reached€by€the€court€of€appeals€and€(2)€anyÏdecision€rendered€by€the€intermediate€court€regarding€the€constitutional€ð ðvested€rightsðð€issue€andÏthe€constitutionality€of€ðð€68„215„102(c)€was,€at€most,€implicitly€decided.€€As€to€the€latter,€it€isÏargued€that€an€implicit€decision€regarding€the€constitutionality€of€a€duly€enacted€law€of€theÏlegislature€should€not€be€afforded€ð ðlaw€of€the€caseðð€status.€€Appellants€further€assert€that€it€is€moreÏlikely€that€these€were€issues€expressly€pretermitted€by€the€court.€€ÌÌà àAs€to€the€first€ground,€Appellants€rely€upon€òòò òClingan€v.€Vulcan€Life€Ins.€Co.óóó ó,Ï694€S.W.2d€327€(Tenn.€App.€1985).€€òòò òClinganóóó ó€ruled€that€a€prior€decision€of€the€court€of€appealsÏwas€not€law€of€the€case,€in€part,€because€the€supreme€court€had€denied€the€defendantððs€permissionÏto€appeal,€concurring€in€results€only.€€òòò òClinganóóó ó,€694€S.W.2d€at€331.€€òòò òClinganóóó ó€also€expressed€anÏadditional€reason€for€its€decision.€€Under€the€facts€in€òòò òClinganóóó ó,€the€court€of€appealsðð€prior€decisionÏreversed€the€trial€courtððs€entry€of€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€the€defendant,€finding€that€thereÏwere€issues€of€fact€that€should€be€submitted€to€a€jury.€€On€remand,€the€case€was€tried€before€a€jury.€ÏAt€the€close€of€proof,€the€defendant€moved€for€a€directed€verdict€which€was€denied€by€the€trialÏcourt.€€The€jury€returned€a€verdict€for€the€plaintiff.€€On€the€second€appeal,€the€defendant€raised€theÏissue€of€the€trial€courtððs€alleged€error€in€denying€the€motion€for€directed€verdict.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€at€329.€€TheÍplaintiffs€relied€upon€the€supreme€court€case€of€òòò òLife€&€Casualty€Insurance€Co.€v.€Jettóóó ó,€133ÏS.W.2d€997€(Tenn.€1939),€to€argue€that€the€court€of€appealsðð€prior€decision€was€ð ðlaw€of€the€case,ððÏprecluding€the€trial€courtððs€directing€of€a€verdict€for€the€defendant.€€ÌÌà àòòò òJettóóó ó€involved€two€trials.òò€€ò òIdóóó ó.€at€331.€€After€the€first,€a€verdict€was€directed€for€theÏdefendant.€€Upon€appeal,€the€court€of€appeals€reversed€the€trial€court€finding€factual€questions€for€aÏjuryððs€determination.€€A€second€trial€resulted€in€a€verdict€€for€the€plaintiff.€€On€appeal€to€theÏsupreme€court,€that€court€held€that€the€first€opinion€of€the€court€of€appeals€was€the€law€of€the€caseÏon€the€second€trial€as€the€evidence€in€both€trials€was€the€same,€thus,€precluding€the€trial€court€fromÏdoing€anything€other€than€submitting€the€factual€issues€to€the€jury€for€determination.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€€ÌÌà àThe€court€in€òòò òClinganóóó ó€expressed€its€agreement€with€the€òòò òJettóóó ó€holding,€butÏdistinguished€the€case€before€it€by€noting€that€in€òòò òJettóóó ó,€ð ð[t]he€verdict€was€directed€in€the€first€caseÏafter€a€trial€on€the€facts€which€the€court€found€to€be€substantially€the€same€in€both€cases.€€In€theÏcase€at€bar€summary€judgment€was€granted€without€a€trial€on€the€merits.ðð€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€€To€the€extent€thatÏòòò òClinganóóó ó€stands€for€the€proposition€that€a€decision€in€a€prior€appeal€only€becomes€the€law€of€theÏcase€in€subsequent€stages€of€the€litigation€where€the€facts,€issues€and€evidence€in€the€later€actionsÏare€substantially€the€same€as€those€before€the€court€in€the€prior€appeal,€we€agree.€€òòò òSee€LeoÏEisenberg€&€Co.€v.€Paysonóóó ó,€785€P.2d€49,€53€(Ariz.€1989).€€However,€as€to€whether€theÏsupreme€courtððs€denial€of€an€appeal,€concurring€in€results€only,€precludes€the€intermediate€courtððsÏdecision€from€becoming€the€law€of€the€case,€we€agree€with€the€rationale€expressed€in€òòò òLadd€v.ÏHonda€Motor€Coóóó ó.,€939€S.W.2d€83€(Tenn.€App.€1996).€€This€Court,€speaking€through€JudgeÏKoch,€discussed€the€law€of€the€case€doctrine€at€length€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€law€of€the€case€doctrine€is€a€discretionary€rule€of€practiceÏthat€promotes€judicial€economy€and€consistency€and€also€protectsÏlitigants€from€the€burdens€of€repeatedly€rearguing€issues€that€haveÏbeen€decided.€€18€Charles€A.€Wright€et€al.,€òòò òFederal€Practice€andÏProcedureóóó ó€ðð€4478,€at€788„90€(1981).€€It€is€not€a€limitation€on€aÏcourtððs€power€like€the€doctrine€of€res€judicata,€but€rather€it€is€aÍcommon€sense€recognition€that€issues€ordinarily€need€not€beÏrevisited€once€they€have€been€litigated€and€decided.€€òòò òMessinger€v.ÏAndersonóóó ó,€225€U.S.€436,€444,€32€S.Ct.€739,€740€(1912);Ïòòò òMendenhall€v.€Barber„Greene€Coóóó ó.,€26€F.3d€1573,€1582Ï(Fed.Cir.),€òòò òcert.€deniedóóó ó,€115€S.Ct.€582€(1994).ÌÌà8 àà àUnder€the€law€of€the€case€doctrine,€an€appellate€courtððsÏdecision€on€an€issue€of€law€becomes€binding€precedent€to€beÏfollowed€in€later€trials€and€appeals€of€the€same€case€involving€theÏsame€issues€and€facts.€€òòò òJones€v.€Jonesóóó ó,€784€S.W.2d€349,€351€n.Ï1€(Tenn.Ct.App.1989);€òòò òCook€v.€McCulloughóóó ó,€735€S.W.2d€464,Ï470„71€(Tenn.Ct.App.1987)€(quoting€òòò òHolcomb€v.€McClureóóó ó,€64ÏSo.2d€689,€691€(Miss.1953));€1B€James€W.€Moore€&€Jo€DeshaÏLucas,€òòò òMooreððs€Federal€Practiceóóó ó€ðð€0.404[1]€(2d€ed.1995).€€TheÏdoctrine€applies€to€issues€that€were€actually€before€the€court,Ïòòò òBarnes€v.€Walkeróóó ó,€191€Tenn.€364,€374,€234€S.W.2d€648,€652Ï(1950),€or€to€issues€that€were€necessarily€decided€by€implication.€Ï18€Wright€et€al.,€€òòò òsupraóóó ó,€ðð€4478,€at€789.€€It€does€not€apply€to€dicta.€Ïòòò òRidley€v.€Haimanóóó ó,€164€Tenn.€239,€248„49,€47€S.W.2d€750,Ï752„53€(1932);€òòò òSchoen€v.€J.C.€Bradford€&€Co.óóó ó,€667€S.W.2dÏ97,€101€(Tenn.Ct.App.1984).€.€.€.€ÌÌà8 àà àThe€application€of€the€law€of€the€case€doctrine€to€intermediateÏappellate€court€opinions€does€not€necessarily€depend€upon€whetherÏthe€opinion€has€been€reviewed€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.€ÏThe€doctrine€has€been€applied€to€decisions€that€have€not€beenÏreviewed€by€the€Supreme€Court,€òòò òBivins€v.€Hospital€Corp.€ofÏAmóóó ó.,€910€S.W.2d€441,€447€(Tenn.Ct.App.1995),€as€well€as€toÏdecisions€that€the€Supreme€Court€has€declined€to€review.€€òòò òLife€&ÏCasualty€Ins.€Co.€v.€Jettóóó ó,€175€Tenn.€295,€299,€133€S.W.2dÏ997,€998„99€(1939);€òòò òState€ex€rel.€Kirkpatrick€v.€Tiptonóóó ó,€670ÏS.W.2d€224,€226€&€n.€5€(Tenn.Ct.App.1984).€€Obviously,€it€doesÏnot€apply€to€intermediate€appellate€court€opinions€that€have€beenÏreversed€or€vacated.€€While€some€question€exists€with€regard€to€itsÏapplication€to€intermediate€appellate€court€decisions€that€the€SupremeÏCourt€has€declined€to€review€ð ðconcurring€in€results€only,ðð€weÏconclude€that€the€doctrine€applies€to€these€cases€because€the€decisionÏto€concur€only€with€the€results€of€an€opinion€simply€ð ðevinces€.€.€.Ï[the]€Courtððs€judgment€that€the€opinion€of€the€.€.€.€[intermediateÏappellate€court]€should€not€be€published.ðð€€òòò òPairamore€v.ÏPairamoreóóó ó,€547€S.W.2d€545,€548€(Tenn.1977).× ƒ+ ××  ×€€These€decisionsÍstill€have€precedential€value€with€regard€to€the€parties€involved€in€theÏcase.€€òòò òPatton€v.€McHoneóóó ó,€822€S.W.2d€608,€615€n.€10Ï(Tenn.Ct.App.1991).ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òLaddóóó ó,€939€S.W.2d€at€90„91.€€(Footnotes€omitted.)€€We€conclude€that€the€supreme€courtððs€denialÏof€the€Boardððs€permission€to€appeal€from€this€Courtððs€prior€decision,€by€concurring€with€theÏresults€only,€does€not€preclude€the€decision€from€becoming€the€law€of€the€case.ÌÌà àThe€Board€also€contends€that€the€law€of€the€case€doctrine€cannot€apply€to€theÏconstitutional€issues€raised€because€they€were€either€not€decided€(ð ðpretermittedðð)€or€determinedÏonly€by€implication.€€To€this€end,€the€Board€asserts€that€we€are€not€precluded€from€further€reviewÏof€these€issues€because€issues€regarding€the€constitutionality€of€legislative€enactment€cannot€beÏdecided€by€implication€but€must€be€determined€by€the€showing€of€ð ða€clear€analysis€of€how€that€lawÏcontravenes€the€constitution.ðð€€It€is€the€position€of€MPC€that€the€issues€were€implicitly€decided.€ÏMPC€argues€that€throughout€the€entire€litigation,€it€has€maintained€that€it€had€a€vested€right€toÏreimbursement€under€the€Act€as€originally€enacted€and€that€the€1990€amendment€was€anÏunconstitutional€deprivation€of€that€right.ÌÌà àòòò òLaddóóó ó€holds€that€the€law€of€the€case€doctrine€applies€to€those€issues€necessarilyÏdecided€by€implication.€€No€exception€is€noted€for€those€issues€of€a€constitutional€nature.€ÏAppellants€can€point€to€no€Tennessee€case€directly€confronting€the€issue,€but€cite€cases€fromÏvarious€other€jurisdictions€in€support€of€their€contention.€€First,€in€òòò òKleinbart€v.€United€Statesóóó ó,Ï604€A.2d€861€(D.C.€App.€1992),€the€ð ðmerits€divisionðð€of€the€court€refused€to€apply€the€law€of€theÏcase€doctrine€to€a€ð ðsummary€affirmanceðð€of€a€pretrial€detention€order€by€the€ð ðmotions€divisionðð€ofÏthe€court.€€The€court€found€that€the€issue€(the€standard€of€proof€required€in€ordering€pretrialÏdetention€based€on€risk€of€flight)€was€not€ð ðthoroughly€aired€and€definitively€resolvedðð€previously.€Ïòòò òKleinbartóóó ó,€604€A.2d€at€867.€€€òòò òKleinbartóóó ó€identified€three€reasons€why€it€would€not€apply€theÍdoctrine:€(1)€the€prior€proceeding€was€a€ð ðòòò òsua€sponteóóó ó€summary€affirmanceðð€of€a€detention€order,Ïabsent€a€government€request€for€such€relief€or€even€a€government€response€to€the€defendantððsÏargument€on€the€issue€in€his€motion€for€summary€reversal;€(2)€the€prior€ruling€was€ð ðan€implicitÏappellate€ruling€on€the€issue€in€a€summary€proceeding€without€articulation€of€any€supportingÏreason;ðð€and€(3)€the€ruling€had€ð ðsignificant€constitutional€implications.ðð€€òòò òIdóóó ó.ÌÌà àIn€òòò òUnited€States€v.€Ferrióóó ó,€686€F.2d€147€(3rd€Cir.€1982),€the€appellee€arguedÏthat€the€prior€decisions€of€the€Supreme€Court€and€court€of€appeals€remanding€the€case€was€anÏimplicit€determination€that€the€district€court€had€jurisdiction€to€consider€the€appelleeððs€claim,€thus,Ïinvoking€the€law€of€the€case€doctrine€on€the€issue€of€jurisdiction.€€òòò òFerrióóó ó,€686€F.2d€at€157.€€òòò òFerrióóó óÏheld:ÌÌÓÓà8 àThere€is€.€.€.€no€indication€that€the€Supreme€Court€specificallyÏconsidered€the€jurisdictional€issue€presently€before€us.€.€.€.€ÏAlthough€[the€appellee]€is€correct,€as€the€government€concedes,€thatÏthe€jurisdictional€argument€was€presented€to€this€court€in€theÏgovernmentððs€petition€for€rehearing€of€our€[decision€to€remand€to€theÏdistrict€court],€our€summary€denial€of€that€petition€cannot€be€viewedÏas€a€determination,€sufficient€to€trigger€law€of€the€caseÏconsequences,€that€the€district€court€had€jurisdiction€to€consider€[theÏappelleeððs]€claim.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òIdóóó ó.€€We€do€not€find€the€foregoing€dispositive€of€the€issue€as€both€cases€involve€ð ðsummaryððÏproceedings€where€no€reason€at€all€is€articulated€for€the€courtsðð€rulings.ÌÌà àAppellants€also€direct€our€attention€to€òòò òUnited€States€v.€Curtisóóó ó,€683€F.2d€769Ï(3rd€Cir.€1982),€where€the€court€refused€to€apply€the€law€of€the€case€doctrine€to€the€issue€of€theÏdefendantððs€constitutional€right€against€double€jeopardy.€€The€prior€decision€of€the€court€involvedÏconsideration€of€the€defendantððs€conviction,€resulting€in€a€remand€for€a€new€trial.€€òòò òCurtisóóó ó,€683ÏF.2d€at€771.€€òòò òCurtisóóó ó€found€that€the€order€for€new€trial€ð ðcould€be€viewed€as€an€implicitÏdetermination€that,€notwithstanding€the€double€jeopardy€clause€or€any€other€constitutional€orÍstatutory€provision,€a€new€trial€was€permissible€and€appropriate€in€[the€defendantððs]€case.ðð€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€Ïòòò òCurtisóóó ó,€however,€found€that€there€was€ð ðno€advertenceðð€in€the€courtððs€prior€opinion€regarding€theÏdouble€jeopardy€concerns€and€thus,€ð ðno€evidenceðð€that€the€court€specifically€considered€thoseÏconcerns€when€ordering€a€new€trial.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€at€772.€€The€court€also€noted€that€neither€party€had€arguedÏthe€double€jeopardy€issue€before€the€first€panel€of€the€court.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€€òòò òCurtisóóó ó€held€that€it€would€notÏð ðinfer€rejection€of€an€allegation€of€a€constitutional€violation€in€the€absence€of€some€judicialÏstatement€that€the€contention€has€been€considered€and€rejected.ðð€€Thus,€the€court€would€ð ðnotÏconclude€that€[the€defendantððs]€double€jeopardy€claim€was€definitively€resolved€by€the€order€of€thisÏCourt€on€his€initial€appeal.ðð€€òòò òIdóóó ó.ÌÌà àFinally,€in€òòò òLocricchio€v.€Evening€News€Assððnóóó ó,€476€N.W.2d€112€(Mich.Ï1991),€the€Michigan€Supreme€Court€refused€to€uphold€the€intermediate€courtððs€application€of€theÏlaw€of€case€doctrine€to€its€prior€decision€involving€the€denial€of€a€summary€judgment€motion.€ÏAfter€denial,€the€plaintiffsðð€case€for€libel€proceeded€to€a€jury€trial€with€a€verdict€being€rendered€inÏfavor€of€one€of€the€plaintiffs.€€The€trial€court,€however,€directed€a€verdict€for€the€defendant.€€OnÏappeal,€the€intermediate€court€applied€the€law€of€the€case€doctrine€to€its€prior€opinion€on€summaryÏjudgment€and€reversed€the€trial€court.€€òòò òLocricchioóóó ó,€476€N.W.2d€at€114.€€òòò òLocricchioóóó ó€held€thatÏthe€court€of€appeals€erred€in€relying€on€the€law€of€the€case€doctrine€ð ðinstead€of€independentlyÏreviewing€the€record€in€a€libel€case€of€First€Amendment€import.ðð€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€at€115.€€The€court€continued:ÌÌÓÓà8 à[I]n€a€libel€case€affecting€constitutionally€protected€public€discourse,Ï.€.€.€the€law€of€the€case€doctrine€must€yield€to€a€competing€doctrine:€Ïthe€requirement€of€independent€review€of€constitutional€facts.ÌÌà8 àà àThe€determination€on€summary€judgment€that€the€plaintiffsððÏcomplaint€stated€a€cause€of€action€for€defamation€by€implicationÏshould€not€have€abrogated€the€appellate€courtððs€duty€toÏindependently€review€the€record€to€determine€whether,€in€fact,€theÏplaintiffs€carried€their€burden€of€proof€at€trial€regarding€falsity€at€theÏpost„trial€directed€verdict€stage.ÌÌÌÌòòò òÓÓIdóóó ó.€at€123.€€(Footnotes€omitted.)€€We€find€the€proceedings€in€òòò òLocricchioóóó ó€somewhat€akin€to€thoseÍin€òòò òClinganóóó ó,€with€both€yielding€similar€results.€€We,€however,€do€no€find€òòò òLocricchioóóó ó€dispositiveÏof€the€issue€before€us.ÌÌà àAfter€careful€review,€we€find€that€the€constitutional€issues€(ð ðvested€rightsðð€andÏconstitutionality€of€ðð€68„215„102(c))€were€squarely€before€this€Court€for€decision€in€the€first€appealÏof€this€case.€€The€issues€had€been€argued€to€and€expressly€addressed€by€the€trial€court€andÏpresented€as€issues€for€appellate€review.€€The€trial€court,€in€its€initial€decision,€expressly€states€theÏposition€of€MPC€from€the€standpoint€that€it€believed€it€had€a€vested€right€of€Fund€reimbursementÏand€that€the€amendment€was€an€unconstitutional€deprivation€of€that€right.€Moreover,€this€CourtððsÏopinion€in€òòò òMemphis€Publishingóóó ó€makes€clear€that€the€court€considered€the€effect€of€the€1990Ïamendment€on€MPCððs€right€to€reimbursement€when€stating€the€positions€of€the€Board€and€theÏchancellor€in€denying€MPC€a€right€to€recover€on€the€basis€of€the€amendment.€€Acceptance€of€theÏBoardððs€position€that€the€appellate€court€did€not€decide€these€issues€requires€the€conclusion€that€theÏcase€was€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€a€determination€of€an€issue€it€had€previously€decided€in€theÏBoardððs€favor,€that€MPC€ð ðnever€had€a€vested€right€to€claim€reimbursement€from€the€fund.ðð€€AÏdetermination€regarding€these€issues€by€the€court€of€appeals€was€essential€in€its€decision€to€reverseÏthe€trial€court.€Unlike€òòò òCurtisó óóó,€where€there€was€uncertainty€as€to€whether€the€issue€had€even€beenÏaddressed,€here€the€only€plausible€construction€of€the€appellate€courtððs€decision€is€that€the€issuesÏwere€implicitly€decided.€€Any€other€construction€would€render€the€prior€decision€of€this€CourtÏmeaningless€and€result€in€an€incomplete€resolution€of€the€issues€squarely€before€it.€€Accordingly,Ïwe€conclude€that€the€law€of€the€case€doctrine€applies€to€this€appeal€and€that€we€are€thereforeÏprecluded€from€considering€the€latter€issues€raised€by€Appellants.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€and€this€cause€remanded€to€the€trial€courtÏwith€instructions€that€the€matter€be€remanded€to€the€Board€for€a€determination€regarding€theÏreasonableness€and€necessity€of€MPCððs€claimed€expenses.€€Costs€are€assessed€against€Appellants,Ïfor€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓÓ` Ü` È“XÓà à______________________________Ìà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌLILLARD,€J.€(Concurs)›Ì