ÿWPCþ ÂV¼Àô*¥u0_òu`ßÛYTÖv&Ô( ¤{à°÷WÝØÉ_ã\PE@13JEÖ¼µB×Hb~4 ÇcïÒw?Ûp©nàVÎ_β•Û§´b ЇíÚzX2x¥åd¿Ïê}½,<«þïDꚟïYµ<àšþzÝ$È-{©ß—o˜$'zNNß+lP¦v)ÄŽqœ¡*ö¯h¿6sw*¸òííµ*o-9Ž+–ÿ›Õ€¨õ¤p‰8uþz’çö»ûhµàP€§2w…ÊóƒÚ¾l÷Óú õóö!Y‡Æ"9I«ïеÂMÀgúÜâ†QN±4›µà 7¶¡òÝsIÁå¡g° È?q³€Á’áÁWåCaÙ ô9R!6¾î¤ºd¶ÛБ’"-È6n˜sÄ´_]ÍÙîsÞÐMß­ÜHPŸ^%fjþS“ÝNx´êõjH ·˜ŽÒ*Gþ(ábÐ-œLñª4ŠÑ#æê=ŸÈ¯æZu[ÏšÈ&6_8û-;ÏRÙ~†nú%I²Dê‘×ûUd¶K–ˆ] ¢»K²d%¦1AyïšJ²#±ûƇœ0ÒÑÂÐãÞ/*Û .*™Èހ߆Êå~8â/GO Ü“é8‡‡b %\^ b 0ˆnU0NöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ š‘ Æ+ Æñ Æ· Æ}UNCN‘ 0D“â×E¹œ»UNWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWb¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ D1­ BÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞ 0ëûûûû Bææ 0¤ D3§ D-Ú 0K ASRÆ¥ 0¤k 0D A«S»óƒJ-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularä]ö,ê:i¢Ø+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4 Plus,ð,,,,,ð0 insuredssubrogatedChemicidestortiousFrostguardviolativeLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ØÝ ƒRñ‹$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô‘Tò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€record€reflects€that€Cox€Oilððs€property€is€adjacent€to€the€United€Methodist€Church. ’Ý ƒRñ‹$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô‘Tò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€a€memorandum€filed€in€the€trial€court,€the€Board€alleges€that€ð ð[Ô_Ôi]tÔ_Ô€is€believed€that€January€1,€1993€is€aÐ ° Ðtypographical€error€and€should€be€1994,€due€to€the€fact€that€it€was€meant€to€ððgrandfatherðð€the€Amoco€permit.ðð€€€However,Ð xÈ Ðthe€Board€does€not€raise€this€issue€on€appeal,€and€there€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€indicating€that€such€a€typographicalÐ @ Ðerror€was€made.€€Therefore,€that€argument€is€not€considered€in€this€appeal.(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular- ù-::)÷ÿ! dxdxüÿP Pd(|G2ñ‹$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€é »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô‘Tò»»Ô d(|3ù$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€é »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ù$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€é »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€é »»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼é »»»ÔÑ8€ñ“XXdð»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îµÏé ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼é »îîµÏ #ԈРÜ, ÐÓ  ÓFebruary€14,€2002€SessionÐ X ÐÔ‡Xñ“X»¼é ÔÌò òÔ#†¼é »XXñ“ô#ÔCOX€OIL€COMPANY,€INC.€v.€CITY€OF€LEXINGTON€BEER€BOARDÔ‡Xñ“X»¼é Ôó óÐ  ` ÐÔ#†¼é »XXñ“o#ÔÔ‡Xñ“X»¼é ÔÌà@@½½ìàò ò€An€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Henderson€CountyÐ  h ÐNo.€14565Ô#†¼é »XXñ“É#ÔÔ‡Xñ“X»¼é Ô€€€€Joe€C.€Morris,€Chancellor€Ð  X ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<ç ` AßÐ è 8  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2001„01489„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€October€10,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ç7  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<Æ` Aßó óÐ Ç  ÐÓ  ÓÌThis€is€an€action€challenging€the€denial€of€a€beer€permit.€€The€plaintiff€business€applied€for€a€beerÐ Æ  Ðpermit€with€the€defendant€beer€board.€€The€board€denied€the€permit€because€plaintiffððs€location€wasÐ ¶ Ðwithin€500€feet€of€a€church.€€This€proximity€to€a€church€was€in€violation€of€a€city€ordinance.€€TheÐ ¦ö Ðplaintiff€filed€a€writ€of€certiorari€in€the€trial€court,€seeking€a€reversal€of€the€boardððs€decision€becauseÐ –æ Ðthe€500„feet€ordinance€had€been€applied€in€a€discriminatory€manner.€€The€trial€court€found€that€theÐ †Ö Ðboard€had€allowed€another€establishment€that€was€within€500€feet€of€a€church€to€maintain€its€beerÐ vÆ Ðpermit,€and€concluded€that€the€board€had€therefore€applied€the€ordinance€in€a€discriminatory€manner.€Ð f¶ ÐConsequently,€the€denial€of€the€plaintiffððs€beer€permit€was€reversed.€€The€board€now€appeals€thatÐ V¦ Ðorder.€€We€affirm,€finding€that€the€board€had€applied€the€ordinance€in€a€discriminatory€manner,€andÐ F– Ðthat€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€reversing€the€denial€of€the€plaintiffððs€beer€permit.Ð 6† ÐÔ#†¼é »XXñ“v#ÔÔ‡Xñ“X»¼é ÔÌÓÓò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€is€Affirmedó óÐ f ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼é »àXñ“ü #ÔÔ‡Xñ“X.¼é ÔHolly€Kirby€Lillard,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòW.€Frank€Crawford,€P.J.,Ð öF ÐW.S.,€and€Alan€E.€Highers,€J.,€óójoined.Ð æ6 ÐÌKenneth€L.€Walker,€Lexington,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€City€of€Lexington€Beer€Board.Ð Æ  ÐÌStephen€M.€Milam,€Lexington,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Cox€Oil€Company,€Inc.Ð ¦"ö! ÐÓ‰ ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼é »XXñ“¸ #ÔÔ‡Xñ“X»¼é ÔÐ †$Ö# ÐÓ  ÓÌÔ#†¼é »XXñ“£ #ÔÔ‡Xñ“X»¼é ÔÓ  ÓÓ Óà  àOn€October€30,€2000,€Plaintiff/Appellee€Cox€Oil€Co.,€Inc.€(ð ðCox€Oilðð),€applied€to€theÐ f&¶!% ÐDefendant/Appellant€City€of€Lexington€Beer€Board€(ð ðthe€Boardðð)€for€a€permit€to€sell€and€storeÐ V'¦"& Ðpackage€beer.€€In€July€1998,€the€City€had€adopted€a€new€ordinance,€Section€8„210,€which€states€thatÐ F(–#' Ða€beer€permit€may€not€be€issued€to€an€applicant€located€ð ðwithin€five€hundred€(500)€feet€of€anyÐ 6)†$( Ðhospital,€school,€church€or€other€place€of€public€gathering.ðð€€The€ordinance€contains€a€ð ðgrandfatherÐ &*v%) Ðclause,ðð€which€states€that€ð ð[n]o€permit€shall€be€suspended,€revoked€or€denied€on€the€basis€ofÐ +f&* Ðâ âproximity€of€the€establishment€to€a€school,€church€or€other€place€of€public€gathering€if€a€valid€permitÐ ,V'+ýÿ Ðhad€been€issued€to€any€business€on€that€same€location€as€of€January€1,€1993€.€.€.€.ðð€€Cox€OilððsÐ ° Ðapplication€for€a€permit€reflects€on€its€face€that€it€is€located€within€60€feet€of€a€church.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð  ð Ðâ âà  àOn€November€7,€2000,€the€Board€of€County€Commissioners,€acting€as€the€City€of€LexingtonÐ €Ð ÐBeer€Board,€heard€Cox€Oilððs€application.€€Cox€Oilððs€application€for€a€beer€permit€was€denied,€basedÐ pÀ Ðon€the€500„feet€rule.€€On€December€20,€2000,€Cox€Oil€filed€a€writ€of€certiorari€in€the€trial€court,Ð ` ° Ðseeking€a€reversal€of€the€Boardððs€decision€because€the€Board€had€applied€the€500„feet€rule€in€aÐ P   Ðdiscriminatory€manner.€€Cox€Oil€alleged€that,€on€December€3,€1993,€a€beer€permit€was€issued€toÐ @  ÐLexington€Amoco,€located€adjacent€to€Cox€Oil€and€also€within€500€feet€of€a€church.€€Cox€OilððsÐ 0 € Ðlawsuit€noted€that,€Lexington€Amocoððs€beer€permit€had€not€been€revoked€or€suspended€since€theÐ  p  Ðenactment€of€the€City€ordinance,€Section€8„210.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€Board€had€allowedÐ `  ÐLexington€Amoco€to€keep€its€beer€permit,€and€that€Lexington€Amoco€was€located€within€500€feetÐ P  Ðof€a€church,€in€violation€of€the€City€ordinance.€From€this,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€the€500„feetÐ ð@  Ðrule€was€being€applied€in€a€discriminatory€manner.€€If€the€ordinance€is€applied€in€a€discriminatoryÐ à0  Ðmanner,€the€trial€court€held,€the€ð ðordinance€is€completely€removed€as€a€valid€ground€for€denial€ofÐ Ð  Ða€beer€permit€and€invalidates€the€ordinance.ðð€€On€this€basis,€the€trial€court€ordered€the€Board€to€issueÐ À Ða€beer€permit€to€Cox€Oil.€€The€Board€now€appeals€that€order.€Ð ° Ðà  àOn€appeal,€the€Board€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€relying€on€the€permit€issued€toÐ à ÐLexington€Amoco€as€evidence€of€discriminatory€application€of€the€ordinance.€€The€Board€notes€thatÐ €Ð Ðthe€permit€was€issued€to€Lexington€Amoco€in€compliance€with€a€decree€of€the€Chancery€Court€ofÐ pÀ ÐHenderson€County€because€of€past€discriminatory€issuance€of€permits€in€violation€of€the€Cityððs€priorÐ `° Ðdistance€ordinance.€€Because€of€this,€the€Board€maintains,€there€was€in€effect€no€distance€ordinanceÐ P  Ðin€the€City€of€Lexington€at€the€time€the€permit€was€issued€to€the€Lexington€Amoco.€€In€theÐ @ Ðalternative,€the€Board€asserts€that€the€Lexington€Amoco€beer€permit€was€covered€by€the€grandfatherÐ 0€ Ðclause€in€the€new€distance€ordinance.€€Finally,€the€Board€claims€that€the€new€distance€ordinanceÐ  p Ðpromulgated€in€July€1998€constituted€a€ð ðnewðð€ordinance€that€was€adopted€along€with€an€entirely€newÐ ` Ðcity€charter€and€city€code.€€Therefore,€the€Board€maintains,€the€new€ordinance€is€not€a€€ð ðpost€factoððÐ P Ðamendment€with€which€all€existing€permits€must€comply.Ô#†¼é »XXñ“ #ÔÔ‡Xñ“X»¼é ԀРð@ Ðà  àÔ‡Xq< XXXñ“ÔWe€review€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€de€novo€upon€the€record€with€a€presumption€ofÐ Ð  Ðcorrectness€of€the€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court.€€òòò òSeeó óóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).Ô#†Xñ“X XXq<¦#ÔÔ#†¼é »XXñ“e#ÔÔ‡Xñ“X»¼é Ô€€We€afford€the€trialÐ ¼!  Ðcourtððs€conclusions€of€law€no€such€presumption.€òòò òÔ‡Xq< XXXñ“ÔSeeóóó ó€òòò òState€v.€Levandowskió óóó,€955€S.W.2d€603,€604Ð ¼"   Ð(Tenn.€1997)Ô#†Xñ“X XXq