ÿWPC ð`¶³k·++¼ÉsÉ?´(²`djË[`îg©)}þg+¦hµ"¿£«`J%˜ï„pp|XY-íúðeñãåNkÀOµ¡´ÜL%( ÿ,ð´U óa…€õ -x.IT¶EäÞìç?³‚UÒÅ$¶¶OÈZPJ“óî21Z;VM¹˜ú8´ ¦* ÿ, ô~‰ Jî ~³”3Ý$ŸŽ¸ƒ”h8ÂU5†nGÛ.e»,žáÆ”Vh¿ˆкáNRyÊ Ö-€øœÍîÕ/€ÔÐñ`¦Ü„«È­ÏT yk´<® @a~}£(íJrqEàBÉöLû¢u¼H€z£ôO¶öæ)¤·p…Î0<èóÑ)ƒ©©\qɶŠü¤¢·Ù†%|2r"Sq£±bwd§¿ü«ûzYÓ;B7lu÷ÿlq°<å Ô”ŸJE™î'·é33„«tfÅа§ Š¸™ÇÜ€ÃD-f5 :b¤,,vSƒ+l»Â‹?tÝDéh™‡ áŽô¶BgO4¼_;B‰Ý>^ir‹4‘Ô8à’€¦}ÓÚ÷ˆ¿•ñw#öm]׳!ìšOõÎ^Sá lÿ]Û”2ƒçÛLÎ…4F Z 0(i ‘ w@™ Ù UN÷ U:E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E UB %Á Á Á Á Á Á Á Á Á Á Á BÇ Ç Ç Ç Ç D3ä ä ä 0D                                                                                  AO[ ƪ ª 0Dp D/´ Bã ýhµ&ÔøÔô3|x@($¡¡ ,-{./0{12D345Ó€ Ô€XXXXÔÔ€îyïîXXÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ÔîîyïÔÐ  ÐÌò òJuly€13,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôoôÔÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX d%%%%'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñ5ñ›ñ5ñÑ°ÑÒÜ°ÒÑ ý ÑÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€XXdÈXXdð7ÑÔ€X€mXXXÔÔ€Š4ÇŠXX€mÔñ5ñßr€*<,(j 8 `€€@E  tt0"H¨Órß›ñ5ñ€€€€à@j j ‚àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  ÐÌà@>>%‚àAT€KNOXVILLEˆÌó óÌÌÌNATIONAL€GAS€DISTRIBUTORS,€à ì à)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9902„CH„00077Ð   Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)Ìà 4 àPlaintiff„Appellant,à < àà ” àà ì à)€SEVIER€CHANCERYÐ  Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)Ìv.à 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)€HON.€TELFORD€E.€FORGETY,€JR.,Ð   Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)€CHANCELLORÌSEVIER€COUNTY€UTILITY€à ” àà ì à)Ð   ÐDISTRICT€of€Sevier€County,€à ” àà ì à)Ð   ÐTennessee,à Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)Ð  Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)Ìà 4 àDefendant„Appellee.à ” àà ì à)Ð  Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)Ìandà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)Ð  Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)ÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€Attorney€à ” àà ì à)Ð  ÐGeneral€and€Reporter€for€the€State€ofà ì à)Ð  ÐTennessee,à Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àœ)€AFFIRMED›Ð  Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àœ)ñ-ññ,ñ€ñ,ññ-ññ,ñ€Añ,ññ.ñNDñ.ñ›Ìà 4 àIntervening€Defendant„Appellee.à ì àœ)ñ0ññ/ñ€ñ/ññ0ññ/ñ€Rñ/ññ1ñEMANDEDñ1ñ›Ð  ÐÌÌÌDONALD€K.€VOWELL,€VOWELL€&€ASSOCIATES,€Knoxville,€for€Plaintiff„¼Appellant.ÌÌROBERT€E.€COOPER,€JR.,€and€W.€SCOTT€SIMS,€BASS,€BERRY€&€SIMS,€PLC.,ÏNashville,€andÌRONALD€E.€SHARP,€SHARP€&€RIPLEY,€Sevierville,€for€Defendant„Appellee.ÌÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€ÌMIKE€E.€MOORE,€Solicitor€General,€andÌJANET€M.€KLEINFELTER,€Senior€Counsel,€Financial€Division,€Nashville,€Ìfor€Intervening€Defendant„Appellee.ÌÌÌÌà@%‚àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óˆÐ 1** ÐÌÌà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àFranks,€J.ÌÌÌÓÓà 4 àà Œ àPlaintiff€appeals€from€a€T.R.C.P.€12.02(6),€dismissal€of€its€complaint.Ìà 4 àà Œ àPlaintiffððs€principal€place€of€business€is€in€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€and€it€Ïsells€and€distributes€propane€in€Sevier€County,€Tennessee.€€Defendant€is€a€utilityÐ ;þ34ýS Ðdistrict€created€pursuant€to€the€Tennessee€Utility€District€Law€of€1937.€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àInitially,€plaintiff€alleged€that€the€Utility€District€Law€of€1937€did€notÏallow€defendant€to€sell€propane,€and€sought€a€permanent€injunction€enjoiningÏdefendant€from€marketing€and€selling€propane€to€its€customers,€or€from€engaging€inÏother€unauthorized,€unlawful€or€ultra€vires€activities.Ìà 4 àà Œ àSubsequently,€plaintiff€amended€its€complaint€to€allege€that€after€theÏoriginal€complaint€was€filed,€defendant€proceeded€to€contact€certain€members€of€theÏTennessee€General€Assembly€and€cause€those€members€to€assist€in€enacting€a€law€thatÏwould€free€the€defendants€from€œñ2ñits›€ñ2ñliability.›€€The€law€which€was€enacted€by€the€GeneralÏAssembly,€amended€the€Utility€District€Law€of€1937,€and€added€a€new€subsectionÏwhich€states:ÌÓÓà0 4 àà0Œ 4(#4(#àà ä àAny€district€providing€propane€gas€service€on€April€15,€1998,€isÏempowered€to€provide€such€service€within€the€county€or€counties€inÏwhich€it€is€providing€service€on€that€date€without€any€furtherÏproceedings€before€or€approvals€of€any€county€executive,€the€utilityÏmanagement€review€board€or€any€other€person€or€agency;€provided,€theÏauthorization€contained€in€this€subsection€shall€not€preclude€any€otherÏperson,€firm€or€corporation,€public€or€private,€from€furnishing€propaneÏgas€service€within€the€area€served€by€the€district.Ð Œ (#Œ (# ÐÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€7„82„302(j)€(1998).€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àPlaintiffððs€amended€complaint€stated€the€statute€is€impermissible€underÏArticle€I,€ðð€8€and€Article€II,€ðð€8€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€and€the€5th€and€14thÏAmendments€to€the€United€States€Constitution.Ìà 4 àà Œ àIt€specifically€alleged€that€the€statute€would€operate€to€suspend€theÏgeneral€law€for€the€benefit€of€seven€favored€utility€districts,€thereby€giving€them€aÏspecial€privilege€to€sell€propane,€which€is€not€available€to€the€other€utility€districts.€€ItÏstated€that€the€amendment€creates€two€classes€of€propane€dealers,€with€one€beingÏgranted€special€privileges€and€the€other€not.€€It€also€averred€that€the€amendment€placesÏa€special€burden€on€private€propane€dealers€doing€business€in€territories€of€the€sevenÏfavored€utility€districts€that€is€not€placed€on€propane€dealers€doing€business€in€the€restÐ :33 Ðof€the€State,€because€those€dealers€must€compete€with€an€entity€that€does€not€have€toÏpay€certain€taxes€and€that€can€raise€capital€by€bond€issues.€€The€Complaint€alleges€thisÏtreatment€creates€two€classes€of€propane€dealers,€one€which€is€exempt€from€payingÏspecified€taxes,€and€one€which€is€not,€and€that€this€classification€is€arbitrary,Ïcapricious€and€unreasonable.€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àAfter€the€statute€came€under€attack,€the€Attorney€General€was€permittedÏto€intervene,€and€defendant€again€moved€to€dismiss€the€amended€complaint.€€TheÏmotion€was€granted€by€the€Trial€Judge€and€this€appeal€ensued.Ìà 4 àà Œ àWhether€the€complaint€was€properly€dismissed€for€failure€to€state€aÏclaim€upon€which€relief€can€be€granted,€essentially€presents€two€questions:Ì1.€€Whether€plaintiff€has€standing€to€challenge€the€statute,€and€2.€€If€plaintiff€hasÏstanding,€whether€the€complaint€states€a€claim€for€relief.Ìà 4 àà Œ àWe€are€required€to€construe€the€allegations€of€the€complaint€inÏplaintiffððs€favor,€and€accept€the€allegations€of€fact€as€true.€€However,€inferences€to€beÏdrawn€from€the€facts€or€legal€conclusions€set€forth€in€the€complaint€are€not€required€toÏbe€taken€as€true.€€òòRiggs€v.€Bursonóó,€941€S.W.2d€44,€47„48€(Tenn.€1997),€òòcert.€deniedóóÐ ˆ'€  Ð118€S.€Ct.€444€(1997).Ìà 4 àà Œ àThere€are€twenty„one€utility€districts€in€Tennessee,€of€which€seven€wereÏproviding€propane€service€on€April€15,€1998,€including€defendant.€€T.C.A.€ðð7„82„¼302(j)€(1998),€applies€to€seven€utility€districts€and€either€divides€utility€districts€intoÏtwo€groups,€one€which€can€lawfully€sell€propane€and€one€which€cannot;€€or€dividesÏutility€districts€into€two€groups,€one€which€can€lawfully€sell€propane€without€goingÏthrough€the€approval€process€set€out€in€the€statue,€and€one€which€must€get€priorÏapproval€before€selling€propane.€€Either€classification€is€a€classification€among€utilityÏdistricts,€which€the€defendant,€we€conclude,€does€not€have€standing€to€challenge.€€Ð Ð9È22 Ðà 4 àà Œ àStanding€is€a€judge„made€doctrine€ð ðused€to€refuse€to€determine€theÏmerits€of€a€legal€controversy€irrespective€of€its€correctness€where€the€party€advancingÏit€is€not€properly€situated€to€prosecute€the€action.ðð€€òòKnierim€v.€Leatherwoodóó,€542Ð   ÐS.W.2d€806,€808€(Tenn.€1976).€€To€establish€standing,€a€party€must€show:ÌÓÓà0 4 àà0Œ 4(#4(#à(1)€that€it€sustained€a€distinct€and€palpable€injury,€(2)€that€the€injury€wasÏcaused€by€the€challenged€conduct,€and€(3)€that€the€injury€is€apt€to€beÏredressed€by€a€remedy€that€the€court€is€prepared€to€give.Ð Œ (#Œ (# ÐÌÓ ÓòòMetro.€Air€Research€Testing€Auth.,€Inc.€v.€Metro.€Gov.€of€Nashvilleóó,€842€S.W.2d€611,Ð 80  Ð615€(Tenn.€App.€1992)€(òòciting€Allen€v.€Wrightóó,€468€U.S.€737,€752€104€S.€Ct.€3315,Ð @8 Ð3325,€82€L.€Ed.€2d.€556€(1984);€òòMorristown€Emergency€&€Rescue€Squad,€Inc.€v.Ð H@ ÐVolunteer€Dev.€Co.óó,€793€S.W.2d€262,€263€(Tenn.€App.€1990)).€€òòSee€also€Price€v.€Stateóó,Ð PH Ð806€S.W.2d€179,€181€(Tenn.€1991);€òòDavis€v.€Allenóó,€307€S.W.2d€800€(Tenn.€App.Ð XP Ð1957)€òòperm.€to€app.€deniedóó.€€Even€if€a€statute€is€unconstitutional,Ð `X ÐÓÓà0 4 àà0Œ 4(#4(#àonly€those€who€have€a€right€to€raise€a€question€of€its€unconstitutionalityÏmay€invoke€the€aid€of€the€courts€to€have€it€judicially€set€aside,€and€theÏconstitutionality€of€a€legislative€act€is€open€to€attack€by€those€personsÏwhose€rights€are€affected€thereby.€€Before€a€law€can€be€assailed€by€anyÏperson€on€the€ground€that€it€is€unconstitutional,€he€must€show€that€he€hasÏan€interest€in€the€question€in€that€the€enforcement€of€the€law€would€be€anÏinfringement€on€his€rights.€€Assailants€must€therefore€show€theÏapplicability€of€the€statute€to€them€and€that€they€are€thereby€injuriouslyÏaffected.Ð Œ (#Œ (# ÐÌÓ¯#ÓòòParks€v.€Alexanderóó,€608€S.W.2d€881,€885€(Tenn.€App.€1980)€(òòquotingóó€16€Am.€Jur.€2dÐ )ˆ"" ÐòòConstitutional€Lawóó€ðð€188€(1979)).Ð ˜+$$ Ðà 4 àà Œ àPlaintiff€argues€that€the€classifications€among€utility€districts€are€aÏviolation€of€due€process€and€equal€protection€under€United€States€and€TennesseeÏConstitutions.€€It€states€that€it€is€injured€because€it€is€forced€to€compete€with€utilityÏdistricts€that€have€a€substantial€advantage€because€they€do€not€pay€taxes,€among€otherÏthings.€€Thus,€its€injury€is€due€to€having€to€compete€for€business€with€utility€districts,Ïnot€due€to€either€some€utility€districts€being€allowed€to€sell€propane€and€some€not,€orÏsome€districts€being€allowed€to€sell€propane€without€going€through€the€approvalÐ Ð9È22 Ðprocess,€and€some€not.€€As€such,€it€cannot€establish€the€causal€element€of€standing,Ïtherefore€it€cannot€challenge€the€amendment€because€it€treats€utility€districtsÏdifferently.Ìà 4 àà Œ àPlaintiff€argues,€however,€that€it€does€have€standing€because€defendantÏis€engaging€in€illegal€and€unfair€competition€and€that€plaintiff€has€been€harmed€by€thisÏcompetition.€€In€support€of€its€position,€it€cites€an€Alabama€case€which€says,Ïð ð[c]learly,€the€threat€of€competition€is€sufficient€to€provide€standing€to€contest€theÏlegality€of€a€competitorððs€facility,ððòò€Traders€&€Farmers€Bank€of€Haleyville€v.€CentralÐ @8 ÐBank€of€Ala.óó,€320€So.2d€638,€641€(Ala.€1975),€and€a€federal€case€which€states,€ð ð.€.€.Ð H@ Ðwhere,€as€here,€the€threatened€competition€arises€from€an€allegedly€illegal€facility,€theÏappellee€state€banks€have€standing€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòWhitney€Nat.€Bank€v.€Bank€of€New€Orleansóó,Ð XP Ð323€F.2d€290,€300€(D.C.€Cir.€1963).€€While€plaintiff€may€have€standing€to€challengeÏillegal€competition,€it€admits€that€the€amendment€authorizes€defendant€€to€sellÏpropane.€€As€such,€the€activity€is€not€illegal,€as€it€is€explicitly€authorized€by€statute.€€Ïœñ4ñPlaintiffñ4ññ4ñ›ñ4ññ3ñAccordingly,€plaintiff€must€have€an€interest€harmed€by€the€classifications€of€theÏstatute,€which€it€does€not€allege.€€Therefore,€National€Gasñ3ñ,›€to€have€standing,€must€have€an€interest€harmed€by€the€classification€of€theÏstatute,€which€it€has€not€alleged.€€€€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àPlaintiff€could€have€standing€to€challenge€any€classifications€that€mayÏhave€been€created€between€private€and€public€propane€dealers,€but€it€failed€to€state€thisÏclaim€because,€as€the€Trial€Judge€found,€there€is€a€rational€basis€to€allow€utilityÏdistricts€to€sell€propane.€€Plaintiff€did€not€allege€any€intentional€discrimination€in€theÏenactment€of€the€statute.€€The€Amendment,€as€applied€to€private€propane€dealers,€isÏneutral€on€its€face,€and€there€is€no€allegation€that€the€statute€violates€plaintiffððs€dueÏprocess€or€equal€protection.€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àPlaintiff€argues€the€classifications€in€the€amendment€violate€the€14thÏAmendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution,€and€Article€1,€ðð8€and€Article€11€ðð8€ofÏthe€Tennessee€Constitution.€€Ð Ð9È22 Ðà 4 àà Œ àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€the€due€process€guaranteesÏin€the€14th€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€1,€ðð€8€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution€are€ð ðsynonymous.ðð€€òòNewton€v.€Coxóó,€878€S.W.2d€105.€110Ð   Ð(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó€513€U.S.€869€(1994);€€ð ðUnless€a€fundamental€right€isÐ   Ðinvolved,€the€test€for€determining€whether€a€statute€comports€with€substantive€dueÏprocess€is€whether€the€legislation€bears€ðða€reasonable€relation€to€a€proper€legislativeÏpurposeðð€and€is€ððneither€arbitrary€nor€discriminatory.ðððð€òòNewtonóó,€878€S.W.2d€at€110Ð 80  Ð(òòciting€Nebbia€v.€New€Yorkóó,€291€U.S.€502,€537,€54€S.€Ct.€505,€516,€78€L.€Ed.€940Ð @8 Ð(1934);€òòNational€Railroad€Passenger€Corp.€v.€Atchison,€Topeka€Santa€Fe€Ry.€Co.óó,€470Ð H@ ÐU.S.€451,€105€S.€Ct.€1441,€84€L.€Ed.€2d€432€(1985).€Ìà 4 àà Œ àSimilarly,€while€the€ð ðequal€protection€provisions€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution€and€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€are€historically€and€linguisticallyÏdistinct,ðð€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€and€Article€1,€ðð€8€and€Article€11,€ðð€8€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution€ð ðconfer€essentially€the€same€protection€upon€the€individualsÏsubject€to€those€provisions.ðð€€òòTenn.€Small€Sch.€Sys.€v.€McWherteróó,€851€S.W.2d€139,Ð x#p Ð152€(Tenn.€1993)€(citations€omitted).€€In€analyzing€equal€protection€claims€under€theÏTennessee€Constitution,€Tennessee€has€followed€the€framework€developed€by€theÏUnited€States€Supreme€Court.òò€€Id.€óóat€153;€òòNewton€v.€Coxóó,€878€S.W.2d€105,€109€(Tenn.Ð )ˆ"" Ð1994)€òòcert.€deniedóó€513€U.S.€869€(1994);€òòState€v.€Testeróó,€879€S.W.2d€823,€827„828Ð ˜+$$ Ð(Tenn.€1994).Ìà 4 àà Œ àBoth€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€and€the€Tennessee€SupremeÏCourt€utilize€three€standards€of€scrutiny€in€examining€equal€protection€claims,Ïdepending€on€the€right€asserted.€€òòTenn.€Small€Sch.€Sysóó.,€851€S.W.2d€at€153€(òòciting€CityÐ ¸3°,, Ðof€Memphis€v.€International€Brotherhood€of€Elec.€Workers€Unionóó,€545€S.W.2d€98,€101Ð À5¸.. Ð(Tenn.€1976)€(reduced€scrutiny);€òòMitchell€v.€Mitchellóó,€594€S.W.2d€699,€701€(Tenn.Ð È7À00 Ð1980)€(heightened€scrutiny);€òòDoe€v.€Norrisóó,€751€S.W.2d€834,€840€(Tenn.€1988)€(€strictÐ Ð9È22 Ðscrutiny)).€€Equal€protection€ð ðrequires€strict€scrutiny€of€a€legislative€classification€onlyÏwhen€the€classification€interferes€with€the€exercise€of€a€ððfundamental€rightðð€(e.g.,€rightÏto€vote,€right€of€privacy),€or€operates€to€the€peculiar€disadvantage€of€a€ððsuspect€classððÏ(e.g.,€age€or€race).ðð€€òòTesteróó,€879€S.W.2d€at€828€(citations€omitted).€€IntermediateÐ   Ðscrutiny€only€applies€when€the€classification€involves€a€quasi„suspect€class,€such€asÏgender€or€illegitimacy.€€òòCraig€v.€Borenóó,€429€U.S.€190,€198„199,€97€S.€Ct.€451,€457,€50Ð 0(  ÐL.€Ed.€2d€397€(1976).€€Most€often,€ð ðthe€legislative€choice€is€limited€to€whether€theÏclassifications€have€a€reasonable€relationship€to€a€legitimate€state€interest.ðð€€òòNorris,óóÐ @8 Ð751€S.W.2d€at€841.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€said€long€ago,ÌÓÓà0 4 àà0Œ 4(#4(#àIf€legislation€arbitrarily€confers€upon€one€class€benefits,€from€whichÏothers€in€a€like€situation€are€excluded,€it€is€a€grant€of€a€special€right,Ïprivilege,€or€immunity,€prohibited€by€the€Constitution,€and€a€denial€ofÏthe€equal€protection€of€the€laws€to€those€not€included.€€If€the€legislation,Ïwithout€good€reason€and€just€basis,€imposes€a€burden€upon€one€classÏwhich€is€not€imposed€upon€others€in€like€circumstances€or€engaged€inÏthe€same€business,€it€is€a€denial€of€the€equal€protection€of€the€laws€toÏthose€subject€to€the€burden€and€a€grant€of€an€immunity€to€those€notÏsubject€to€it.Ð Œ (#Œ (# ÐÌÓŽ?ÓòòState€v.€Nashville€C.€&€St.€L.€Ry.€Co.óó,€124€Tenn.€1,€135€S.W.€773,€775€(1911).Ð x#p ÐHowever,€ð ð[u]nder€this€standard,€if€some€reasonable€basis€can€be€found€for€theÏclassification,€or€if€any€state€of€facts€may€reasonably€be€conceived€to€justify€it,€theÏclassification€will€be€upheld.ðð€€òòTenn.€Small€Sch.€Sys.óó,€851€S.W.2d€at€153.Ð )ˆ"" Ðà 4 àà Œ àThe€equal€protection€arguments€and€the€due€process€arguments€can€beÏdealt€with€together,€because€they€both€require€the€same€analysis.€€If€there€is€a€rationalÏbasis€for€the€statute,€and€if€the€statute€is€not€discriminatory,€then€it€must€be€upheld.€ÏHere,€the€trial€court€specifically€found€that€the€legislature€had€a€rational€basis€forÏenacting€this€legislation.€€The€Court€indicated€that€if€it€was€reasonable€to€create€aÏutility€district€to€provide€services€such€as€natural€gas,€water,€and€sewer,€then€it€wasÏreasonable€to€allow€utility€districts€to€provide€propane€to€its€customers.€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àEnsuring€that€the€citizens€of€the€state€have€access€to€needed€utilities,€likeÐ Ð9È22 Ðnatural€gas€and€propane,€is€a€proper€legislative€purpose.€€It€is€rational€to€allow€utilityÏdistricts€to€provide€propane€in€addition€to€other€services,€and€it€is€rational€to€allow€theÏutility€districts€already€providing€propane€to€continue€to€do€so,€in€order€that€theirÏcustomers€do€not€suffer€a€lapse€in€service€while€the€districts€are€getting€approval€fromÏthe€county€executive.€Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€amendment,€on€its€face,€does€not€discriminate€against€any€class€ofÏprivate€propane€dealers.€€It€applies€only€to€utility€districts.€€The€only€mention€made€ofÏprivate€dealers€is€the€section€stating€that€the€amendment€will€not€prevent€any€otherÏperson€or€entity€from€selling€propane€gas,€which€does€not€establish€any€discriminationÏagainst€any€person€or€entity.Ìà 4 àà Œ àPlaintiff,€however,€essentially€argues€the€amendment€is€discriminatoryÏbecause€the€downstream€effects€create€a€disparate€impact€on€private€propane€dealersÏbecause€they€are€subject€to€taxation€and€other€burdens€which€do€not€apply€to€the€utilityÏdistricts.€€While€violations€of€equal€protection€have€been€found€in€cases€where€aÏstatute€is€neutral€on€its€face,€but€has€a€disparate€impact€on€particular€classes,€thoseÏcases€involve€discrimination€against€suspect€or€quasi„suspect€classes,€like€race,€age,€orÏgender.€€òòSee€Yick€Wo€v.€Hopkinsóó,€118€U.S.€355,€6€S.€Ct.€1064,€30€L.€Ed.€220€(1886);Ð ˆ'€  ÐòòArlington€Heights€v.€Metropolitan€Housing€Dev.€Corp.óó,€429€U.S.€252,€97€S.€Ct.€555,Ð )ˆ"" Ð50€L.€Ed.€2d€450€(€1977);€òòPersonnel€Admððr€of€Mass.€V.€Feeneyóó,€442€U.S.€256,€99€S.Ð ˜+$$ ÐCt.€2282€60€L.€Ed.€2d€870€(1979).€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àThis€case€does€not€involve€a€suspect€or€quasi„suspect€class,€and€toÏestablish€any€violation€of€due€process€or€equal€protection€by€the€amendment,€plaintiffÏmust€show€that€the€Legislature€intended€to€discriminate€against€such€dealers€when€itÏenacted€the€amendment.€€Plaintiff€would€be€required€to€illustrate€that€the€LegislatureÏð ðselected€or€reaffirmed€a€particular€course€of€action€at€least€in€part€ððbecause€of€,ðð€notÏmerely€ððin€spite€of,ðð€its€adverse€effects€on€an€identifiable€group.ðð€òòFeeney,óó€442€U.S.€atÐ Ð9È22 Ð279,€99€S.€Ct.€at€2296.€€Plaintiffððs€allegations€do€not€assert€that€the€Legislature€enactedÏthis€amendment,€at€least€in€part,€to€discriminate€against€private€propane€dealers.€ÏMoreover,€discrimination€against€private€propane€dealers€is€not€apparent€on€the€faceÏof€the€amendment.€€Accordingly,€plaintiff€has€not€stated€a€claim€for€violation€of€dueÏprocess€or€equal€protection.Ìà 4 àà Œ àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€for€the€foregoing€reasons,€andÏremand€with€cost€of€the€appeal€assessed€to€plaintiff.ÌÓÓà 4 à€€ÌÌÌòòà 4 àÌóóà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à__________________________Ð PH Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.ÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌWilliam€H.€Inman,€Sr.J.Ì€