WPC # VUNa % 0(w@4 1 @ 0lH 0D 0J 0TB 0^ 0h 0r\ 0| 0J 0 1u` 0d B9U>VB)DC AMU*Mw|{(v~ D3v 0@ AO2 0D D/< BkHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0nLH(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ UUUgerrӀD $3|x((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X d<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd-#C << G<  9p`(Arial !#d#!  %%   YYY FILED%XAugust27,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk   r !#d#!   $       Rule10(CourtofAppeals).MemorandumOpinion .(b)TheCourt,withconcurrenceofalljudgesparticipatinginthecase,mayaffirm,reverseormodifytheactionsofthetrialcourtbymemorandumopinionwhenaformalopinionwouldhavenoprecedentialvalue.Whenacaseisdecidedbymemorandumopinionitshallbedesignated MEMORANDUMOPINION,shallnotbepublished,andshallnotbecitedorreliedonforanyreasoninasubsequentunrelatedcase.  !#d#!   $       Thetenthcaseisnotthesubjectofthisappealasapparentlythedefendantdidnotobjecttotherighttotakeandpossessionwasgranted.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'h 'dxdStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . !  ݛ \RA'\` ` pX\RA'\7Xdd7 @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE,WESTERNSECTION@ ATNASHVILLE @ _______________________________________________________ ) UNITEDCITIESGASCOMPANY , ) RutherfordCountyCircuitCourt ) No.24096̀Plaintiff/Appellant. ) ) C.A.No.01A019611CV00528VS. )  ) HON.ROBERTE.CORLEW,III ROBERTJ.SUDDARTHandwife , ) CHANCELLOR MARYM.SUDDARTH,etal , )  ) DISMISSEDANDREMANDED ̀Defendants/Appellees. ) ̜R$&#A1-j| `  `@Rߛ ) OPINIONFILED: WilliamK.Lanes,III ,DANCE,DANCE&LANE,Nashville,forPlaintiff/Appellant. RichardF.LaRoche ,Murfreesboro, GranvilleS.R.Bouldin ,Murfreesboro,forDefendants/Appellees.______________________________________________________________________________@ MEMORANDUMOPINION '   כ______________________________________________________________________________  ` ` X      FARMER,J.  ThisisaninterlocutoryappealgrantedpursuanttoRule9T.R.A.P.UnitedCitiesGasCompany(United)filedatotaloftenpetitionsinthecourtbelowwhereinitsoughttoexercisethepowerofeminentdomaintoacquireapermanenteasementinDefendantslands,saideasementbeingnecessaryinordertoconstructapipelineparallelandadjacenttotherightofwayofStateHighway99.Immediatepossessionofthepropertywasrequested.Thedefendantlandownerstimelyfilednoticeofobjectiontothetaking.Immediatepossessionwasdenied.Nineofthecasesweresubsequentlyconsolidatedbythetrialcourt. (   ׀AmotionforwritofinquirywasfiledbyUnited.Thetrialcourtruledthatpossessionmaybedelivered,ifatall,onlyuponconclusionofthesuit. ThetrialcourtenteredanorderApril24,1996,impanelingajuryofviewanddirectingit:8 [T]oreceiveevidenceandtogouponthelandsofDefendantstodeterminewhat,ifany,portionthereofitisnecessarytocondemnfortheprojectdescribedinthePetition,andshouldtheJuryofInquestdeterminethatitisnecessarytocondemnanysuchlands,tolayoffthesamebymetesandbounds. ItisthepositionofUnitedthatthejuryofviewhasnoauthoritytomakeadeterminationdifferentfromthecondemningauthoritysopinionastotheamountoflandneededinthetakingandthatthejurysonlyresponsibilityistoassessdamages.Itisthepositionofthelandownersthatthetrialcourtwascorrectandthatitfallswithintheprovinceofthejuryofviewtoalsodeterminetheamountoflandrequiredtobetaken. TheorderofthisCourtgrantingtheinterlocutoryappealprovidedthat8  Itisfurtherorderedthattheissuesonappealshallbelimitedtothescopeoftheauthorityofajuryofview.ThepartiesshouldspecificallyaddresswhetherandunderwhatcircumstancesTenn.CodeAnn.2916113permitsajuryofviewtodifferwithacondemninggaspipelinecompanysdeterminationoftheamountofpropertyneededfortheproject. T.C.A.2916113(a)providesthat:8 Thejurywillthenproceedtoexaminetheground,andmayheartestimony,butnoargumentofcounsel,andsetapart,bymetesandbounds,asufficientquantityoflandforthepurposesintended,andassessthedamagesoccasionedtotheownerthereby. Thelandownersbrieffiledinthiscausestatesthatthelayingofthepipelineproceededduringthependencyoftheproceedingsbelowandwassuccessfullyplacedsothatitdidnothavetoencroachuponthelandofatleastsomeofthedefendantlandowners.AtoralargumentbeforethisCourtontheinterlocutoryappeal,counselforallofthepartiesconcededthatthepipelinehasbeenfullyinstalled,wasplacedentirelywithinthehighwayrightofwayanddoesnotencroachuponanyoftheselandowners.However,counselforUnitedinsistedthatthisCourtruleontheissuepresentedonappealbecauseofthepossibilitythattheStatemightrequirethepipelinetoberemovedfromtherightofwayatsometimeinthefuture,whichwouldrequirereplacingthepipelineuponaportionofthelandownersproperty.ThisfactwasnotincludedintheRule9applicationforaninterlocutoryappeal.ItappearstothisCourtthatthisispurespeculationatthispoint.Itfurtherappearsthatthisissuewouldnotbecomejusticiableuntilsuchtimethatatakingofaportionofthelandownerspropertyisrequested.Thismayneveroccur.Acasewillgenerallybeconsideredmootifitnolongerservesasameanstoproviderelieftotheprevailingparty.Judicialeconomypromptsustoavoidrenderingadvisoryopinionsordecidingabstractlegalquestions. McIntyrev.Traughber ,884S.W.2d134,137(Tenn.App.1994).Itresultsthatthisinterlocutoryappealisdismissedandthiscauseisremandedtothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedingsconsistentherewith. CostsofthisappealaretaxedtoUnitedCitiesGasCompany,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.      ____________________________________      FARMER,J.______________________________CRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S.(Concurs)______________________________LILLARD,J.(Concurs)