ÿWPCy) 1•~z°J „·å–õ-ñùªÜß°­ 7ÍzÝfvÆ£˜ºX›Ýéö3ežL I V=Í߃šªƒ7xÄd¦_Ƶ؎@º9 ;¨`åèHz! .úìu»=º|¬wnUÛÆ¾È Ê£MÂ(^ÜõÉʃl¦=@A ¼¼_¤OÞÔ`Š ~à3H#§K^ESj”#5µ-–ÁRÀ6ëá\]ìżžÞp~sÆ%˜¹ñ­ŠCÿ5™PÄ7óÆgzò¨½Ìb6Dl ëÚºC'Ü’¾®ª|B@ Ùœ!Ô>'´ ”äWØG§ñÛQá‚’× wb(MX1 }[¡4ö‹_á+kµSg(W3K?Äè=ðÄlð™qس\ã£@¯ÒR†/]â VvQ½8ýûÑ{2P¸†ì>¶ ÕÞ²ÜË É~sÑ‹cEX‘3w,œKý|øØ_Cf³üüov÷jöò›¿…šÓZ&à‘QŠÎ±µ‹R쥘׳ÁÛ“V®½’ò b4Xn9@L4+þ%xlò¸&Š$ÑKÿ$côN4›mdŸ'#m]7ÏüýR®¦™š ׬œI^_ªÆç¥±”'_PcuõÉ.Ýkd#!xUN™ %ç 0(íw 4 - < ¡D 0lå 0DQ N• Q— Äè]¬“ vœ†3˜ËDÍ/ð@ m0#6G#U:}$^ ·$·$·$·$·$ BÃ$Ã$Ã$Ã$Ã$[à$à$·;&oò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò&ò& 0Da' D5¥'¥'¥'¥'¥' AQÚ'Æ+( 0Dñ( 0D5)˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡{Z='3|x —Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€agree€with€the€Defendantsðð€contention€on€appeal€that€the€Sanders€failed€to€state€aÐ ° Ðclaim€for€selective€enforcement.€€ò òòòSee€generallyó óóó€ò òòòFuternickv.€Sumpter€Townshipó óóó,€78€F.3d€1051,Ð œì Ð1056„60€(6th€Cir.),€ò òòòcert.€deniedó óóó,€519€U.S.€928€(1996).€€In€our€view,€however,€the€SandersððÐ ˆØ Ðcomplaint€successfully€states€an€equal€protection€claim€without€regard€to€this€theory.€€TheÐ tÄ ÐSanders€are€not€merely€complaining€of€the€Defendantsðð€selective€enforcement€of€the€CountyððsÐ `° Ðstock€gap€removal€policy.€€The€Sanders€also€complain€that€the€Defendants€have€taken€affirmativeÐ L œ Ðsteps€to€exempt€other€landowners€from€the€effects€of€the€policy€while€denying€a€similarÐ 8 ˆ Ðexemption€to€the€Sanders.((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó GÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýò òòòSee€alsoó óóó€ò òòòBrattonv.€City€of€Florenceóóó ó,€688€So.€2d€233,€235€(Ala.€1996)€(holding€that€cityÐ ° Ðwas€not€entitled€to€summary€judgment€on€developersðð€claim€that€city€violated€their€equalÐ œì Ðprotection€rights€by€denying€their€application€to€build€apartment€complex€and€by€issuing€permitÐ ˆØ Ðfor€larger€apartment€complex€in€immediate€vicinity€where€proffered€evidence€failed€to€showÐ tÄ Ðarticulable€basis€for€disparate€treatment). ºÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝSection€29-14-113€provides€that€the€Declaratory€Judgment€Act€ð ðis€declared€to€beÐ ° Ðremedial;€its€purpose€is€to€settle€and€to€afford€relief€from€uncertainty€and€insecurity€with€respectÐ œì Ðto€rights,€status,€and€other€legal€relations;€and€is€to€be€liberally€construed€and€administered.ðð€Ð ˆØ ÐT.C.A.€ðð29-14-113€(1980). SÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝPursuant€to€42€U.S.C.€ðð1983,€the€complaint€also€sought€damages€for€the€DefendantsððÐ ° Ðalleged€violation€of€the€Sandersðð€constitutional€rights;€however,€the€Sanders€abandoned€theirÐ œì Ðclaim€for€damages€during€these€proceedings.€€ ‰Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýò òòòSeeó óóó€T.C.A.€ðððð29-20-101€to€-407€(1980€&€Supp.€1996). lÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€contrast,€the€courts€have€held€that€the€Declaratory€Judgment€Act€does€not€give€trialÐ ° Ðcourts€jurisdiction€to€issue€declaratory€judgments€against€the€state€or€its€officers.€€ò òòòL.L.€Bean,Ð œì ÐInc.v.€Braceyó óóó,€817€S.W.2d€292,€297„98€(Tenn.€1991);€ò òòòNorthern€Telecom,€Inc.v.€Tayloró óóó,€781Ð ˆØ ÐS.W.2d€837,€839„40€(Tenn.€1989),€ò òòòcert.€deniedó óóó,€496€U.S.€905€(1990);€ò òòòSpencerv.€Cardwelló óóó,€937Ð tÄ ÐS.W.2d€422,€424€(Tenn.€App.€1996).€€An€exception€to€this€rule€arises€under€section€29-14-103€ofÐ `° Ðthe€Declaratory€Judgment€Act,€which€specifically€authorizes€trial€courts€to€hear€declaratoryÐ L œ Ðjudgment€actions€seeking€the€construction€of€a€statute€or€challenging€a€statuteððs€validity.€Ð 8 ˆ Ðò òòòCampbellv.€Sundquistó óóó,€926€S.W.2d€250,€256„57€(Tenn.€App.€1996);€T.C.A.€ðð29-14-103€(1980).€Ð $ t ÐIn€such€cases,€the€Act€requires€that€the€state€attorney€general€be€made€a€party€to€the€proceeding.€Ð  ` Ðòòò òBuena€Vista€Special€Sch.€Dist.€v.€Board€of€Election€Commððrsó óóó,€116€S.W.2d€1008,€1009€(Tenn.Ð ü L  Ð1938);€òòò òPetersv.€OððBrienó óóó,€278€S.W.€660,€660€(Tenn.€1925);€T.C.A.€ðð29-14-107(b)€(1980). |Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýò òòòSeeó óóó€T.C.A.€ðððð29-14-101€to€-113€(1980). )Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýò òòòSee,€e.g.ó óóó,€ò òòòWatsonv.€City€of€Gatlinburgó óóó,€699€S.W.2d€171,€172„73€(Tenn.€App.€1985)Ð ° Ð(concluding€that€rational€basis€existed€for€cityððs€action€of€singling€out€plaintiff€employee€forÐ œì  Ðtermination€where€evidence€showed€that,€although€other€city€employees€were€involved€inÐ ° Ðincident€involving€abuse€of€city€prisoner,€plaintiff€was€senior€employee€who€played€major€role€inÐ œì Ðincident). :Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝUltimately,€however,€the€utility€districtsðð€second€breach€of€contract€claim€wasÐ ° Ðunsuccessful€because€the€doctrine€of€collateral€estoppel€precluded€them€from€relitigating€theÐ œì Ðissue€of€the€interpretation€of€the€contractððs€rate€increase€provision.€€The€utility€districts€wereÐ ˆØ Ðbound€by€the€chancellorððs€interpretation€of€this€provision€as€set€forth€in€his€first€decree.€€ò òòòKingv.Ð tÄ ÐBrooksó óóó,€562€S.W.2d€at€424. %Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note,€however,€that€the€Defendants€have€challenged€the€chancery€courtððs€subject„Ð ° Ðmatter€jurisdiction€over€the€Sandersðð€present€action.€€If€our€analysis€is€incorrect€and€the€chanceryÐ œì Ðcourt€does€not€have€subject„matter€jurisdiction€over€the€Sandersðð€claims,€then€the€chancery€courtÐ ˆØ Ðlikewise€could€not€have€exercised€subject„matter€jurisdiction€over€the€Sandersðð€claims€in€the€firstÐ tÄ Ðaction. æÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€also€conclude€that€the€Defendantsðð€attempt€to€convert€their€motion€for€summaryÐ ° Ðjudgment€into€a€motion€to€dismiss€was€ineffectual,€inasmuch€as€the€parties€supported€theirÐ œì Ðarguments€with€evidentiary€materials€beyond€their€pleadings€and€the€trial€courtððs€judgmentÐ ˆØ Ðrecites€that€it€was€based€on€ð ðthe€entire€record€in€this€matter.ðð€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€ò òòòAdamsTV€of€Memphis,€Inc.v.Ð tÄ ÐComCorp€of€Tenn.,€Inc.ó óóó,€969€S.W.2d€917,€920€(Tenn.€App.€1997);€ò òòòPacific€E.€Corp.v.€Gulf€LifeÐ `° ÐHolding€Co.ó óóó,€902€S.W.2d€946,€951„52€(Tenn.€App.€1995);€T.R.C.P.€12.02.ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ,Ý ƒb¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€Xð÷XXXÔÔ€À?XXð÷ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€Xð÷XÀ?ÔÐ  ÐÌSeptember€3,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAxÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regularñ‰#'  d QÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€Sanders€are€òòò òpro€seóóó ó.€€Mr.€Sanders€attempted€to€file€a€brief€on€behalf€of€both€himselfÐ ° Ðand€his€wife.€€However,€there€is€no€indication€in€the€record€that€Mr.€Sanders€is€an€attorneyÐ œì Ðauthorized€to€represent€Ms.€Sanders. ­Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýò òòòSeeó óóó€Tenn.€Const.€art.I,€ðð8,€art.XI,€ðð8;€ò òòòsee€alsoó óóó€U.S.€Const.€amend.XIV. eÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýò òòòSeeó óóó€T.R.C.P.€12.02(6).(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý )ÿÿ!dxdxabZc[Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ'°,X°À”X°œX'Óò òßx€`[B2.jz³`  `€€@ÿEæc` 8ttxP°ð ³ xßÔ_Ôà@O O ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE,€ˆÐ ° Ðà@áá$ìàAT€NASHVILLE€ó óˆÐ œì ÐÌà@. . ìà_______________________________________________________ˆÌÌà À à)Ìò òKEVIN€SANDERS€and€ó óà À à)à  àLincoln€County€Chancery€CourtÐ 8 ˆ Ðò òPATRICIA€SANDERSó ó,à À à)à  àNo.€10,982Ð ( x Ðà À à)Ì€€€€€Plaintiffs/Appellants.à À à)Ð  T  Ðà À à)ÌVS.à À à)à  àC.A.€No.€01A01„9902„CH„00111Ð Ü,  Ðà À à)Ìò òLINCOLN€COUNTY€and€ó óà À à)Ð ´  Ðò òSTEVE€GRAHAM,€Chairman€of€ó óà À à)Ð ¤ô  Ðò òLincoln€County€Commissionó ó,à À à)Ð ”ä  Ðà À à)Ì€€€€€Defendants/Appellees.à À à)Ð pÀ Ðà À à)Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌFrom€the€Chancery€Court€of€Lincoln€County€at€Fayetteville.Ìò òHonorable€Lee€Russell,€Judge,€Sitting€by€Interchange€ó óÐ  \ ÐÌÌÌò òKevin€Sandersó ó,€òòò òPro€Seóóó óÐ ¼  ÐÌÌÌò òGregory€H.€Oakleyó ó,€MANIER€&€HEROD,€Nashville,€TennesseeÐ p À ÐAttorney€for€Defendants/Appellees.ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:ÌÌò òREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDó óÐ è&8"% ÐÌÌà À àò òFARMER,€J.ó óÐ ¬)ü$( ÐÌò òHIGHERS,€J.ó ó:€(Concurs)Ð „+Ô&* Ðò òLILLARD,€J.ó ó:€(Concurs)Ð t,Ä'+ ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÐ 8;ˆ6; ÐÔ_Ô‡Ó0°,X°` ˜X°,X°À”X0ÓÓ  ÓÓÓà ` àPlaintiffs€Kevin€and€Patricia€Sanders€appeal€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€whichÐ ° Ðdismissed€their€complaint€against€Defendants/Appellees€Lincoln€County€and€Steve€Graham,Ð ˆØ ÐChairman€of€the€Lincoln€County€Commission,€based€upon€the€courtððs€rulings€that€the€complaintÐ `° Ðfailed€to€state€an€equal€protection€claim€against€the€Defendants€and,€alternatively,€that€the€SandersððÐ 8 ˆ Ðequal€protection€claim€was€barred€by€principles€of€òòò òres€judicataó óóó.׃%×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€conclude€that€both€of€theseÐ  ` Ðrulings€were€in€error€and,€thus,€we€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€and€remand€this€cause€forÐ è 8  Ðfurther€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.Ð À  ÐÌà ` àThe€Sanders€own€a€316„acre€farm€in€Lincoln€County€upon€which€they€raise€cattle.€Ð pÀ ÐThe€Sandersðð€farm€is€bisected€by€Martin€Hollow€Road,€a€public€road€that€has€been€maintained€byÐ H˜ ÐLincoln€County€since€at€least€1975.€€In€addition€to€the€Sanders,€several€other€area€residents€must€useÐ  p ÐMartin€Hollow€Road€to€access€their€homes.€€Ð øH ÐÌà ` àUntil€1996,€the€Sanders€maintained€stock€gaps€(or€cattle€guards)€on€Martin€HollowÐ ¨ø ÐRoad€at€the€two€points€where€the€road€crosses€their€property€lines.€€Along€with€fencing€around€theÐ €Ð Ðpropertyððs€perimeter,€the€stock€gaps€prevented€the€Sandersðð€cattle€from€leaving€the€property.€Ð X ¨ ÐAlthough€the€perimeter€fencing€and€stock€gaps€effectively€contained€the€Sandersðð€cattle€on€theirÐ 0"€  Ðproperty,€within€the€confines€of€the€property€the€cattle€crossed€Martin€Hollow€Road€at€will.€Ð $X" ÐConsequently,€some€of€the€area€residents€who€used€Martin€Hollow€Road€complained€that€theÐ à%0!$ ÐSandersðð€cattle€had€caused€several€accidents€and€near„accidents€on€the€road.€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà ` àIn€response€to€these€and€other€complaints,€the€Lincoln€County€Highway€CommitteeÐ h+¸&* Ðrecommended€that€the€County€remove€stock€gaps€from€all€County€roads.€€The€Lincoln€CountyÐ @-(, ÐCommission€did€not€formally€adopt€the€Highway€Committeeððs€recommendation€at€the€time€it€wasÐ /h*. Ðmade€in€July€1996,€but€the€Commission€agreed€that€it€needed€to€address€the€problem€and€itÐ ð0@,0 Ðsubsequently€implemented€a€general€policy€of€removing€stock€gaps€from€all€County€roads.€€Ð È2.2 ÐÌà ` àAt€the€Commissionððs€direction,€County€Executive€Jerry€Mansfield€sent€letters€toÐ x6È16 ÐKevin€Sanders€and€three€other€landowners€asking€them€to€fence€their€land€to€prevent€cattle€fromÐ ° Ðroaming€on€County€roads.€€The€other€landowners€agreed€to€comply€with€the€Commissionððs€request,Ð ˆØ Ðeither€by€fencing€their€land€or€by€otherwise€taking€steps€to€keep€their€cattle€off€the€roads;€however,Ð `° ÐKevin€Sanders€refused€to€fence€his€property€along€Martin€Hollow€Road€or€to€remove€his€stock€gapsÐ 8 ˆ Ðfrom€the€road€because€of€the€considerable€expense€involved.€€Ð  ` ÐÌà ` àIn€March€1997,€the€Commission€passed€a€resolution€requiring€the€removal€of€stockÐ À  Ðgaps€from€Martin€Hollow€Road.€€The€resolution€applied€only€to€Martin€Hollow€Road;€it€did€not€referÐ ˜è  Ðto€any€other€County€roads€affected€by€the€Countyððs€stock€gap€removal€policy.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà ` àThe€following€month,€the€Sanders€filed€a€complaint€in€the€Chancery€Court€of€LincolnÐ  p ÐCounty€seeking€an€injunction€against€enforcement€of€the€Commissionððs€resolution.€€The€SandersððÐ øH Ðcomplaint€named€as€defendants€County€Executive€Jerry€Mansfield€and€County€Road€SuperintendentÐ Ð  ÐDonny€Ray€Hudson.€€Among€other€claims,€the€Sanders€contended€that€the€Commissionððs€resolutionÐ ¨ø Ðdenied€them€equal€protection€of€the€law׃'×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€because€the€resolution€unfairly€singled€them€out€and€didÐ €Ð Ðnot€apply€to€similarly„situated€landowners€in€the€County.€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà ` àAfter€conducting€a€trial€at€which€extensive€testimony€was€presented,€the€chancellorÐ $X" Ðentered€a€memorandum€opinion€and€judgment€rejecting€the€Sandersðð€equal€protection€claim.€€AsÐ à%0!$ Ðpertinent,€the€chancellorððs€memorandum€opinion€indicated€thatÐ ¸'#& ÐÌÓÓà8 ` àthe€facts€in€the€case€are€virtually€undisputed.€€The€[Sanders]€own€inÐ h+¸&* Ðfee€simple€land€on€either€side€of€Martin€Hollow€Road€in€a€rural€partÐ T,¤'+ Ðof€Lincoln€County,€Tennessee.€€The€road€is€a€gravel€road€that€hasÐ @-(, Ðbeen€maintained€by€Lincoln€County€for€decades€and€has€been€shownÐ ,.|)- Ðas€a€public€road€on€the€work€map€of€the€county€during€the€entire€termÐ /h*. Ðof€the€current€road€superintendent....Ð0T+/` x` x ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ àMultiple€families€live€on€Martin€Hollow€[R]oad€beyond€theÐ Ü1,-1 Ð[Sandersðð]€section€of€the€road€and€beyond€the€stock€gaps€across€theÐ È2.2 Ð[Sandersðð]€section€of€the€road....€€The€evidence€is€overwhelmingÐ ´3/3 Ðthat€recently€and€for€years€the€[Sandersðð]€cattle€have€roamed€at€largeÐ  4ð/4 Ðacross€this€section€of€road.€€The€stock€gaps€impede€the€cattleððsÐ Œ5Ü05 Ðmovement€up€the€road,€allowing€the€[Sanders]€to€have€their€cattle€onÐ x6È16 Ðthe€road€but€preventing€the€cattle€from€escaping€onto€land€beyond€theÐ d7´27 Ð[Sandersðð]€property.ÐP8 38` x` x ÐÐ <9Œ49 Ðà8 ` àà ¸ àIn€recent€years,€members€of€the€[County€Commission]€andÐ ° Ðother€elected€officials€in€Lincoln€County€have€received€numerousÐ œì Ðcomplaints€about€the€presence€of€the€cattle€on€the€road€and€about€theÐ ˆØ Ðdamage€done€to€the€road€by€the€cattle.€€One€school€bus€driver,€whoÐ tÄ Ðdrives€children€on€this€road,€has€complained€about€the€situation.€Ð `° ÐThree€or€four€years€ago€the€[Sanders]€bulldozed€out€an€old€stockÐ L œ Ðfence€along€a€portion€of€the€road,€and€now€there€are€no€fences€inÐ 8 ˆ Ðexistence€which€impede€the€[Sandersðð]€cattle€from€occupying€theÐ $ t Ðroad.€€There€have€been€some€minor€accidents€as€a€result,€but€no€majorÐ  ` Ðinjuries,€but€the€free€passage€of€vehicles€has€often€been€impeded€byÐ ü L  Ðthe€presence€of€the€cattle€and€by€the€damage€the€cattle€have€done€toÐ è 8  Ðthe€road.ÐÔ$ ` x` x ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ àIn€July€of€1996,€the€[County€Commission]€established€aÐ ¬ü  Ðgeneral€policy€against€having€stock€gaps€across€county€roads.€€LettersÐ ˜è  Ðfrom€county€officials€and€direct€contact€of€the€landowners€by€countyÐ „Ô  Ðofficials€communicated€to€several€citizens€the€need€to€remove€theirÐ pÀ Ðstock€gaps.€€Virtually€all€of€the€landowners€except€the€[Sanders]€haveÐ \¬ Ðremoved€or€agreed€to€remove€their€stock€gaps.€€The€[Sanders],Ð H˜ Ðhowever,€refused€to€do€so.€€As€a€result,€the€[Commission]€passed€aÐ 4„ Ðresolution€on€March17,€1997,€directing€that€the€stock€gaps€on€MartinÐ  p ÐHollow€Road€be€removed€on€May20,€1997.€€The€[Sanders]€filed€forÐ  \ ÐÔ& Ä Ôan€injunction€against€this€action€by€the€county€on€April4,€1997.ÐøH` x` x ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ à....Ô'Äø^(ÔÐÐ ` x` x ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ àThe€evidence€of€the€Defendantsðð€witnesses,€neighbors€andÐ ¨ø Ðcounty€officials,€and€the€photographs€submitted€into€evidenceÐ ”ä Ðestablished€that€the€[Sandersðð]€cattle€are€frequently€and€in€largeÐ €Ð Ðnumbers€on€the€road€and€that€they€regularly€obstruct€passage€on€theÐ l¼ Ðroad€and€do€physical€damage€to€the€road.€€The€county€has€a€sufficientÐ X ¨ Ðinterest€in€the€road€to€allow€it€to€manage€the€presence€of€obstructionsÐ D!” Ðon€the€road.€€Removal€of€the€stock€gaps€is€an€appropriate€action€toÐ 0"€  Ðtake€to€limit€the€presence€of€cattle€on€the€road,€although€it€is€not€aÐ #l! Ðcomplete€solution€to€the€problem€of€the€cattle€on€the€road....€Ð$X"` x` x ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ àIf€the€resolution€of€March17,€1997,€were€viewed€in€isolation,Ð à%0!$ Ðit€might€appear€to€single€out€and€discriminate€against€the€[Sanders].€Ð Ì&"% ÐThe€evidence€in€the€case,€however,€makes€it€clear€that€the€actualÐ ¸'#& Ðsituation€was€that€the€[Sanders]€were€the€lone€offenders€against€aÐ ¤(ô#' Ðmore€general€policy€of€the€county.€€Other€stock€gaps€which€still€existÐ )à$( Ðelsewhere€in€the€county€are€either€in€the€process€of€being€removed,Ð |*Ì%) Ðare€at€points€beyond€which€no€one€lives€or€no€one€other€than€the€partyÐ h+¸&* Ðwho€maintains€the€gaps,€or€in€areas€where€there€is€no€problem€withÐ T,¤'+ Ðcattle€having€access€to€the€road.€€The€[Sandersðð]€situation€is€unique€inÐ @-(, Ðthat€removing€the€stock€gaps€on€Martin€Hollow€Road€will€discourageÐ ,.|)- Ðthe€running€of€cattle€on€a€publicly€maintained€road€which€is€used€byÐ /h*. Ðthe€general€public.€€The€policy€is€not€discriminatory€and€isÐ 0T+/ Ðimminently€(sic)€reasonable.€€Ðð0@,0` x` x ÐÌÓÓÌà ` àOn€appeal,€this€court€agreed€with€the€chancellorððs€ruling€that,€although€theÐ  4ð/4 ÐCommissionððs€resolution€appeared€to€affect€only€the€Sanders,€the€resolution€did€not€deny€them€equalÐ x6È16 Ðprotection€of€the€law€because€the€Commission€had€applied€the€same€policy€to€the€Sanders€as€it€hadÐ P8 38 Ðto€other€residents€of€the€County.€€Accordingly,€this€court€affirmed€the€chancellorððs€judgmentÐ (:x5: Ðrejecting€the€Sandersðð€equal€protection€challenge€to€the€resolution.€€ò òòòSandersv.€Mansfieldó óóó,€No.Ð