WPCs +I"E )^V`$츜]PgN$ЉGΈ "f ʜxF;^-#58'Wqgg@^h-9`\+#-.,eֽV1F%mov/Z4Jڟ!Q*;aQΒN5ryU*Eh]| 0U 0 0 0 0c 0 0 0|! 0#" 0" 0# 0Z$ 0 % 0% 0a& 0' 0' 02(b( 0( 0) 0E* 0* 0+ 01, 0, 0[- 0- 0. 0U/ 0>0 0Q0 0I1 0+2 0 3 03 04 05 0m6 02?7 0q7 0 :m8 0 Y8 0_9 0 _9 0i: 0; B*= D/>J> 0? D/A 0=A 06 B 0AB 0:,CfC 0^E BzE 1eE 0E D3F D-F 0KG 72KG AS}GG 0H 0D:I A~I 0N)J wJJtLVxOQP R5R7S 9TQTWU4YV]ncevf17hahk^ owo o4qq r m r#"r(@ Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  8dl6TypewriterK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt2 0CommentB  3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)X[ZA<< c(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial ^ RS:$      2    _ԀInanaffidavitfiledDecember12,2000,BillyDavis( Davis),AssistantDirectorofPublicWorks,testified  astothecurrentvalueofthetippingfee,andtheprocessforassessingthisfee. t 8  8`   Thetippingfeeshavebeenraisedandloweredovertheyears.Thecurrenttipping L feefordisposalatNashvilleThermalis$24.00perton.Thatfeewasreducedfrom  $44.00persquareyardinJune,1998byordinance.` x` x 8  8`   ****************************************************** \` x` x 8  8`   Theprocessforassessingthetippingfeeisasfollows:(a)Vehicleshaulingsolid    wastetoNashvilleThermalareweighedonascaleownedandoperatedbyPublic X   Works;(b)Thedriverpresentsapermitcardatthescalehouse.Thecardidentifies  l  theownerofthevehicle;(c)Thetippingfeeiscalculatedbasedupontheweightof  0  thesolidwasteinthevehicle;and(d)Theownerofthetruckisbilledmonthlyfor   thetippingfee. S RS:$      3    _ԀUnderthetermsoftheircontractswithMetro,privatehaulersreceivecreditforresidentialsolidwaste  collectedintheUSDanddisposedofatThermal.Davistestifiedinhisaffidavitthatthecreditiscurrentlypredicated t onanannualnationalaverageof43poundsofsolidwasteperweek,perhousehold.Thesecontractsare letthrough 8 publicbids,andaresubjecttorebiduponexpiration.  RS:$      4    _ԀWebsterceaseddisposingofsolidwasteatThermalinDecemberof1997,uponthesaleofHermitageHills  SanitaryCo.    RS:$      5    _ԀAppellantsalsosoughtjudgmentsfromthecourtdeclaringthetippingfeesillegal,andaffirmingthatthe  appellantswereentitledtoarefundof allpasttippingfeespaidbyPlaintiffstotheDefendantsandanaccountingfor t thesame.*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   - -(GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/K<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7L(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dK)1dxd RS:$      6    _ԀThermalfileditsownAnsweronFebruary25,1999.<:zTop of For7O(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  K)2dxd0KS.SampleK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong (|G2S:$ !.8 dXXd8         0  42Variable  RS:$      8    _ԀUndisputedfact10fromMetrosstatementoffactsreads: AlltippingfeesreceivedbyPublicWorksare  placedintheSolidWasteDisposalFund.Fact11providesthat [t]axrevenuesalonedonotcoverthecostofdisposal t  ofsolidwaste.: 8HTML MarkupB       d%&'()*+, 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(|3A9$ !.8 dXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1   i)^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3A9$ !.8 dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK(O$clsccl14  RS:$      7    _ԀInanOrderenteredFebruary13,2001,ChancellorEllen_Hobbs_ԀLyledeterminedthatthesummaryjudgment  motionsfiledbythepartiesincasenumber983317IIIwouldnotbeconsolidated.Thechancellortherebyproceeded t tosetseparatehearingdatesfortheindividualmotions.  RS:$      10    _ԀPursuanttotheprovisionsofT.C.A.68211835,onlylocalgovernmentsandsolidwasteauthoritiesare  permittedtoimposecountyfees,providedthatspecificstatutoryconditionsaremet.Section68211835(a)provides: t 8  8`   Eachcounty,municipality,orsolidwasteauthoritywhichownsamunicipalsolid L wastedisposalfacilityorincineratormayimposeatippingfeeuponeachtonof  municipalsolidwasteoritsvolumeequivalentreceivedatsuchsolidwastedisposal  facilityorincinerator. L RS:$      11    _ԀAtoralargument,counselforappellantsconcededthatUSDresidentsmayhavebeenchargedahighertax  rate,butsuggestedthattheadditionalamountchargedperresidentwasminimal. G RS:$      12    _ԀAmunicipalityisaproperpartyinactionsbroughtunder1983. SeeUnitedSteelworkersofAmerica,  AFLCIOCLCv.Dalton, 544F.Supp.282,290(E.D.Va.1982).1100-411/research/buttonTFLink?_m=34a6101554e1c9536df05200d733b02d&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b499%20U.S.%2040/research/buttonTFLink?_m=34a6101554e1c9536df05200d733b02d&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b499%20U.S.%20401990-1371 RS:$      13    _ԀCourtshavetraditionallydefined suspectclassesalongthelinesofrace, age,nationalorigin,andalienage./research/buttonTFLink?_m=34a6101554e1c9536df05200d733b02d&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b499%20U.S.%2040 * RS:$      1    _ԀTheadditionalservicesprovidedtoUSDresidentsbythemetropolitangovernmentaresetforthinSection  1.05oftheMetropolitanCharter.Section1.05furtherdetailsanddistinguishestheservicesprovidedtoresidentswithin t theGSD.Sectionl.05reads: 8 8  8`    ` x` x 8  8`   Thefunctionsofthemetropolitangovernmenttobeperformed,andthe  governmentalservicestoberenderedthroughouttheentiregeneralservicesdistrict  shallinclude:generaladministration,police;courts,jails;assessment;health; H  welfare;hospitals;housingfortheaged;streetsandroads;traffic;schools;parks  \ andrecreation;library;auditorium,fairgrounds;airport;publichousing;urban   redevelopment;urbanrenewal;planning;electricalcode;buildingcode;plumbing    code;housingcode;electricity;transit; refusedisposal ;beersupervision;and X   taxicabregulation. n ` x` x 8  8`   The additional functionsofthemetropolitangovernmenttobeperformedandthe   additionalgovernmentservicestoberenderedwithintheurbanservicesdistrict l  shallinclude:additionalpoliceprotection;fireprotection;water;sanitarysewers; 0  stormsewers;streetlighting;streetcleaning; refusecollections andwineand D  whiskeysupervision. ` x` x (emphasisadded).  RS:$      14    _8 ` 8 ` x` x[A]legislativeclassificationissubjecttostrictscrutinywhenit  interfereswithafundamentalrightoroperatestothe t disadvantagesofasuspectclassofpersons. SeeEvansv. 8 Steelman ,970S.W.2d431,435(Tenn.Ct.App.1998)(citing N  Newtonv.Cox ,878S.W.2d105,109(Tenn.1994)).If,  however,alegislativeclassificationdoesnotinterferewitha  fundamentalrightoradverselyaffectasuspectclassofpersons, N  thentheclassificationissubjecttorationalebasisscrutiny. See  b Evans ,970S.W.2dat435(citing Newton ,878S.W.2dat110).  ( Underrationalbasisscrutiny,alegislativeclassificationwillbe    upheldifareasonablebasiscanbefoundfortheclassificationor b   ifanysetoffactsmayreasonablybeconceivedtojustifyit. See & v  TennesseeSmallSch.Sys.v.McWherter ,851S.W.2d139,153  <  (Tenn.1993)(citing Harrisonv.Schrader ,569S.W.2d822,   825-26(Tenn.1978)).x     Caudillv.Foley ,21S.W.3d203,211(Tenn.Ct.App.1999). P     d RS:$      15    _ԀWMITwaslicensedtocollectanddisposeofwastewithintheMetropolitanboundaries,andinaddition  operateditsownwastedisposalfacilityinMetropolitan. Id .at734. t   RS:$      16    _ԀPursuanttoitsamendedcomplaint,WMITsoughtdeclaratoryandinjunctivereliefonthetheorythattheflow  controlregulationandwastedisposalfeeprovisionsviolatedtheCommerceClauseoftheUnitedStatesConstitution. t  Id .at735. l RS:$      17    _ԀThecourtofferedexamplesofsuchdifferentialtreatment,includingthefactthatthefeeisonlyassessed  againstwastecollectorswhomakedisposalsatwastefacilitiesnotownedbyMetropolitan. Id . ' RS:$      18    _ԀInhisfiledaffidavit,EdwinGray,PresidentofGrays,testifiedthatthecontractedhaulerswerecommingling  garbagecollectedfromtheUSDandGSDdistrictswithoutpayingthesametippingfeesassessedagainstappellantsfor t thedisposalofGSDwaste.GrayfurtherassertedthatMetrosfailureorrefusaltoimposeatippingfeeonthecontracted 8 haulersresultedinunfaircompetitionbecausethesecompetitorscouldchargeasmallerfeefortheirservicesastheydid L nothavetoaccountfortheextradisposalcharges.Asaresult,Graytestifiedthathewasforcedoutofbusiness. W RS:$      19    _ԀInhisaffidavit,EdwinGraytestifiedthatpriortotheSixthCircuits1997decisionin Waste_Mgmt_.,Inc.of  Tennesseev.MetropolitanGovernmentofNashvilleandDavidsonCounty ,130F.3d731(6thCir.1997),hehad no v otherchoicebylaw,buttodisposeofwasteataMetroownedfacility.However,wenotethatthe Waste_Mgmt_. court < suggestedthattheimpositionofcompetitivetippingfeeswouldhavebeenavalidalternativetotheflowcontrol R provisionsinstitutedbyMetro,fortheadvancementoflegitimatelocalinterests. Seeid. at736.Basedonthis  suggestion,weinferthatthecourtwouldnothaveproposedthetippingfeealternativehaditconsideredsuchfeestobe  anillegalrestraintoftradeinviolationoftheShermanAct.n-s   RS:$      9    _ԀAProofofClaimfromtheUnitedStatesBankruptcyCourt,MiddleDistrictofTennessee,wassubmittedas  anexhibittoMetrosVerifiedComplaint.Accordingtothisexhibit,thetotalamountofMetrosclaimagainstGrays t islistedas$96,061.00.Weassumethatthediscrepancyinamountsissimplytheproductofatypographicalerror.,-:i+003|xUHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0 !.8 dd8     _   8]iXXdd8  @  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#  #Ԉ &   November5,2002Session L X]iX  # XX]i#GRAY'SDISPOSALCO.,INC.,etal.v.METROPOLITAN J GOVERNMENTOFNASHVILLE,DAVIDSONCOUNTY,TENNESSEEX]iX    ^ @@ ADirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty  ^ @@Nos.983317III;983400II(III)TheHonorableEllen_Hobbs_ԀLyle,Chancellor  J @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200100923_COA_ԄR3CVFiledDecember31,_2002_   AV) ` dE<` A      X]iXXX]i  Garbagehaulersfiledsuitagainstmetrogovernmentchallenginglegalityof tippingfees  imposedbygovernmentondisposalofresidentialsolidwastecollectedoutsidethecitydistrictand x disposedofatgovernmentownedwastefacility.Thissuitwasconsolidatedwithgovernmentaction d againstappellanthaulersforcollectionofunpaidtippingfees.CourtgrantedgovernmentsMotion P forSummaryJudgmentastotheactionfiledbyappellanthaulers,findingthatthetippingfeewas < notatax,arationalbasisexistedforthefee,thefeedidnotconstituteanunlawfulflowcontrol (x mechanism,andthefeewasauthorizedby_T.C.A._Ԁ68211835(b),therebyimmunizingthe d governmentfromantitrustliability.ThetrialcourtfurthergrantedgovernmentsMotionfor P SummaryJudgmentfiledingovernmentssuitagainsthaulers,findingthatnogenuineissueof < materialfactexistedastotheamountowedbyappellantsinunpaidtippingfees.Onappeal,haulers ( challengedfeesondoubletaxation,equalprotection,andfederalinterstatecommerceclause  grounds,assertingthatthetippingfeewasanillegalflowcontroldevice,unenforceable doubletax,  andviolationofhaulersequalprotectionrightsunder42U.S.C.1983,asitwas_discriminately_  appliedtohaulersdisposingofwastefromoutsidethecitydistrict,andnotthosedisposingofwaste  collectedwithinthecitydistrict.Haulersfurtherappealedtrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgment t  intheconsolidatedcaseonthebasisthathaulerscouldnotbeheldliableforpaymentoffees `!  imposedunderanunconstitutionalflowcontrolregulation.Weaffirmthetrialcourtsgrantof L"! summaryjudgmentastotheactionfiledbyappellanthaulers,andvacatethesummaryjudgment 8#" Orderenteredinfavorofthegovernmentintheactioninitiatedbyappellees.#X]iXXX]i]## XX]i#X]iX  $$t# Q Tenn.R.App.P.3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtVacatedinPart %L!% andAffirmedinPart  &8"&   # X]i#X]iX. W.FrankCrawford,_P.J._,_W.S._,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAlanE._Highers_, ($( J.andDavidR.Farmer,J.,joined. )$) ThomasE.Stewart;_Thurman_ԀT.McLean,Jr.,_Gallatin_,ForAppellantsGray'sDisposalCo.,Inc.,and +&+ RayWebster,d/b/aHermitageHillsSanitaryCo. p,',  \-(- _JohnL.Kennedy;JenniferSurber,Nashville,ForAppellee,TheMetropolitanGovernmentof  NashvilleandDavidsonCounty   OPINION # XX]i#X]iX  t # XX]i#X]iX   8]iXXdXXd8OY    ThiscaseinvolvesadisputeoverthelegalityoftippingfeesassessedbytheMetropolitan L  GovernmentofNashville,DavidsonCounty,Tennessee( Metro),againstindividualgarbage 8  haulerswhocollectedsolidwastefromprivateresidentsintheGeneralServiceDistrictofNashville, $ t anddisposedoftherefuseatagovernmentownedwastefacility.  `   PursuanttoSection1.03oftheCharteroftheMetropolitanGovernment,readinconjunction  8  withT.C.A.71105and72108(5)(A),DavidsonCounty,Tennesseeisdividedintotwoservice $  districts,aGeneralServicesDistrict( GSD)andanUrbanServicesDistrict( USD).Metro   maintainsjurisdictionandauthorityoverbothdistricts.TheGSDconsistsofthetotalareaof   DavidsonCounty,Tennessee.TheUSDencompassestheprincipalcityofNashvilleandsubsequent   annexedareas.USDresidents generallyreceivemoreservicesandpayahigherpropertytaxrate.n  #  1      ׀     UnderSection1.05oftheMetropolitanCharter,Metroprovidessolidwastedisposalservices \ toallresidentsintheGSDandUSD.Metroonlyprovidessolidwastecollectionservicesto H residentswithintheUSD.IntheUSD,theMetropolitanGovernmentcollectsallresidentialsolid 4 wastethroughacombinationofPublicWorksemployeesandequipmentandprivatehaulersunder  p contractbycompetitivebidding.  \   AppellantGraysDisposalCo.,Inc.( Grays),isaTennesseecorporationengagedinthe 4  businessofcollectinggarbageasa[sic]agentforthedisposalofgarbageforownersandresidents   locatedandsituatedintheGeneralServicesDistrict.GraysdisposedofGSDcollectedrefuseat  theMetropolitanThermalTransferCorp.( Thermal),asolidwastedisposalfacilityownedby  Metro.GraysdidnothaulgarbageforNashville,DavidsonCountyresidentslivingwithintheUSD.  InNovemberof1995,GraysfiledforreorganizationunderChapter11oftheUnitedStates t BankruptcyCode.GrayscontinuestooperateasaprivategarbagehaulerforGSDresidents. `   AppellantRayWebster,d/b/a/HermitageHillsSanitaryCo.( Webster),isasole 8  proprietorshiporganizedforthepurposesofprovidinggarbagedisposalservicesexclusivelyto $ t homeownersandresidentslocatedintheGSD.WebsterdisposedofthewastecollectedfromGSD  ` clientsattheThermalfacility.Websterdidnotsupplygarbagedisposalservicestohomeownersand  L  residentslocatedwithintheUSD.WebstersoldHermitageHillsSanitaryCo.in1997for  8  approximately$800,000.00. $    In1975,Metropassedanordinanceimposingapertonfeeonsolidwastedeliveriestothe   Thermalfacility.Thisfeeispresentlylabeleda tippingfee.Tippingfeesareonlyassessedto   deliveriesofsolidwastecollectedbyhaulersoutsideoftheUSD.  #  2      ׀Accordingtoappelleesbrief:   8  8`   TheDepartmentofPublicWorksdoesnotchargeitselfatippingfee \ fordeliveryofsolidwastetoNashvilleThermalbecausetherewould H benonetgaintotheSolidWasteFundthroughsuchabudgettransfer 4 andtheDepartmentwouldincurmoreadministrativecosts.  p Likewise,theMetropolitanGovernmentdoesnotchargeatippingfee  \ totheprivatehaulersofsolidwasteonsolidwastecollectedinthe H USDthroughtheircontracts   #  3      ׀withtheMetropolitanGovernment.4` x` x      Tippingfeesarenotpaidincashupondelivery,butarebilledtotheprivatehaulersona  monthlybasis.Theamountchargedineachbillisbasedontheweightofthesolidwastedelivered  toThermalbytheindividualhauler.Revenuesfromthetippingfeesaredepositedinthe  MetropolitanGovernmentsSolidWasteDisposalFund.Allcostsassociatedwiththecollectionand t disposalofsolidwastearepaiddirectlyfromthisfund. `   Asstated,GraysandWebsterbothutilizedtheThermalfacilityfordisposalofsolidwaste 8  collectedfromGSDresidents.Around1983,pursuanttothe1975ordinance,Metrobeganassessing $ t tippingfeesoneverydeliveryofGSDcollectedwastedisposedofattheThermalfacility,including  ` disposalsmadebyappellants.  #  4      ׀AccordingtothefiledAffidavitofGeneNolan( Nolan),Associate  L  DirectorofFinanceforMetro,thestatedpurposeforthesefeesistosupplementandbalancethe  8  programbudgetforthePublicWorksSolidWasteDisposalFund.Nolanfurthertestifiedthat [t]ax $  revenues,alone,arenotsufficienttopayforthecostofgarbagedisposalinDavidsonCounty.     OnNovember6,1998,appellantsfiledacomplaintagainstMetroandThermalasserting   multiplecausesofaction.Specifically,appellantsallegedthatthetippingfeeschargedconstituted   unlawfulflowcontroldevices,violatedappellantsrightsundertheTennesseeHumanRightsLaw p andTennesseeCivilRightsStatutes,were contrarytoSection1.05oftheCharterofthe \ MetropolitanGovernmentofNashville,DavidsonCounty,Tennessee,violatedtheInterstate H CommerceClauseoftheUnitedStatesConstitutionand42U.S.C.1983oftheFederalCivilRights 4 Act,andcausedappellantstosufferdamagesby creatingunfaircompetition,destructionof  p competition,andrestraintoftrade.  #  5      ׀Shortlythereafter,Metrofiledaverifiedcomplaintagainst  \ Websterforpaymentof$55,275.00inunpaidtippingfees. H   MetrofiledanAnswertoComplaintonJanuary4,1999.M,  #  6      ׀InitsAnswer,Metroadmittedto   imposingatippingfeeondeliveriesofsolidwastecollectedbyappellantsanddisposedofat   Thermal,butdeniedthatsuchfeeswereillegalorunconstitutional.Metrofurtherassertedthat  appellantslackedstandingtosueonbehalfoftheGSDresidents,andthatMetrowas immunefrom  liabilityforrestraintoftradebecausethetippingfeesarespecificallyauthorizedpursuanttostate  policyunderT.C.A.754103. l   InJanuaryof1999,WebsterfiledaSwornAnswertoMetroscomplaint,denyingthathe D! owedanymoneytoMetro.Websteraverredthathewas requiredtodisposeallofhiswasteatthe 0"  ThermalTransferPlant,contrarytothelaw,andpayatippingfeeattheThermalTransferPlant, #l! contrarytothelaw.InanAgreedOrderfiledJanuary25,1999,ChancellorCarolL.McCoygranted $X" WebstersMotiontoTransferMetrosComplaintforunpaidtippingfees(hereinafterreferredtoas  casenumber983400II(III)),toPartIIIoftheDavidsonCountyChanceryCourtforpurposesof  consolidatingthematterwithappellantsactionagainstMetrochallengingthelegalityofthetipping  fees,casenumber983317III. t   OnDecember7,2000,appellantsfiledaMotionforNonSuitastoThermal.Appellants L  motionwasgranted;therefore,Metroishereinafterthesoleappelleeforpurposesofappellants 8  actionofNovember6,1998. $ t   MetrofiledaMotionforSummaryJudgmentincasenumber983317IIIonDecember18,  L  2000.Asgroundsforthismotion,Metrostatedthattheundisputedmaterialfactsandapplicablelaw  8  inthiscaserequirethefollowingconclusions. $  8  8`   1.Thatthetippingfeeforsolidwastedisposalisnotdoubletaxation; ` x` x 8  8`   2.Plaintiffslackstandingtopursuecertainclaims;8@t` x` x   8  8`   3.Impositionofthetippingfeedoesnotviolateanyconstitutional   rightofPlaintiffs;8h` x` xphphp 8  8`   4.Thetippingfeeisnotanimpermissibledevicetocontroltheflow \ ofsolidwaste;H` x` x 8  8`   5.T.C.A.421101etseqand3917108donotapplytothis 4 lawsuit;and p` x` x 8  8`   6.ThetippingfeedoesnotviolatetheShermanAct. \` x` x Insupportofthismotion,MetrofiledaStatementofUndisputedMaterialFactsandtheaffidavits 4 ofGeneNolanandBillyDavis.OnFebruary1,2001,appellantsfiledaResponseinOppositionto   DefendantsMotionforSummaryJudgment.Additionally,appellantsfiledtheirownMotionfor   SummaryJudgmentincasenumber983317III.d  #  7      ׀Aspartoftheresponse,appellantsabandonedthe  TennesseeHumanRightsandTennesseeCivilRightsclaimsassertedintheiroriginalcomplaint.    MetrosMotionforSummaryJudgmentwasheardbythechancerycourtonFebruary16, l 2001.InanOrderenteredMarch12,2001,thecourtgrantedMetrosmotionastotheissuesof X  doubletaxation,equalprotection,violationoftheCommerceClauseoftheUnitedStates D! Constitution,andrestraintoftrade.WequotefromthecourtsOrder: 0"  8  8`   1.DoubleTaxationTheCourtfinds,relyinguponundisputedfacts $X" numbers10and11,T  #  8      ׀thatthetippingfeeisnotatax,butisafee.The $D # Courtfurtherfindsthatnoissueofdoubletaxationexists,andthat  Plaintiffsclaimofdoubletaxationshouldbedismissedonsummary  judgment.` x` x 8  8`   2.EqualProtectionTheCourtfindsthatthereisaclearrationalbasis ` fortheMetropolitanGovernmentnotchargingitselfatippingfee,in L  thatitconservespublicfunds;andthus,Plaintiffsclaimofviolation 8  ofequalprotectionshouldbedismissedonsummaryjudgment.The $ t Courtmakesnodeterminationwhetheranyclassificationofhaulers  ` exists. L ` x` x 8  8`   3.FlowControlTheCourtfindsthatthetippingfeeisnotcoercive, $  andtherefore,isnotaflowcontrolmechanism.TheCourtfurther   findsthatPlaintiffsclaimthatthetippingfeeisameansof   controllingtheflowofsolidwastedoesnotimpacttheCommerce   ClauseoftheUnitedStatesConstitution,andshouldbedismissedon   summaryjudgment.p` x` x 8  8`   4.RestraintofTradeTheCourtfindsthattheParkerImmunity H Doctrineappliesinthiscase,using Columbiav.OmniOutdoor 4 Advertising ,499U.S.365,111S.Ct.1344,113L.Ed.2d,382  p (1991),asguidance.TheCourtfurtherfindsthattheMetropolitan  \ GovernmentisactingunderT.C.A.6811835and754101 et H seq. ,inimposingatippingfee,andassuch,isimmunefromantitrust 4 liability.TheCourt,therefore,determinesthatPlaintiffsclaimof   restraintoftradeshouldbedismissedonsummaryjudgment. ` x` x ThecourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentinfavorofMetrorenderedappellantsmotionmoot.The  courtexplicitlynotedthatthisOrderdidnotaffecttheconsolidatedcase,casenumber983400  II(III). l   OnSeptember21,2001,MetrofiledaMotionforLeaveofCourttoFileAmended D! Complaint,forthepurposeofaddingGraysasadefendantintheconsolidatedcases!specifically 0"  casenumber983400II(III).ExplainingitsfailuretoincludeGraysasadefendantinitsoriginal #l! complaint,MetronotedthatGrayswasinbankruptcyatthetimeoffiling.Metrofurtherexplained $X" initsVerifiedAmendedComplaint. $D # 8  8`   GraysDisposalCo.,Inc.filedforChapter11bankruptcyon &"% November30,1995.OnMay7,1996,theMetropolitanGovernment '#& filedaproofofclaimwiththeU.S.BankruptcyCourtfortheMiddle (#' DistrictofTennesseeforunpaidtippingfeesintheamountof  $96,061.00.w  #  9      ׀...ThisclaimwasnotobjectedtobyGraysDisposal  Co.,Inc.` x` x 8  8`   GraysDisposalCo.,Inc.sbankruptcyplanwasconfirmedbyOrder ` ofU.S.BankruptcyCourtonFebruary12,1997,anditsbankruptcy L  casewasclosedonSeptember5,2000.8 ` x` x 8  8`    ` x` x Inadditiontothe$96,061.00debtincurredbyGrayspriortoitsbankruptcyfiling,Metroasserted  ` thatGraysowed$66,979.80inunpaidtippingfeesassessedondeliveriesmadeafterconfirmation  L  ofGraysChapter11bankruptcyplan.  8    GraysopposedMetrosmotiontofileanamendedcomplaint,statingthattheChapter11   planconfirmedbytheUnitedStatesBankruptcyCourtestablishedapaymentschedulethatlisted   creditorsinaspecificorder.Pursuanttothisplan, thedebttoMetroGovernmentintheamountof   $96,061.00isnotyetscheduledforpaymentstobegin,and,consequently,isnotyetripeforMetro   toattemptcollections. p   OnOctober24,2001,MetrofiledaMotionforSummaryJudgmentspecificallyaddressing H theclaimssetforthincasenumber983400II(III).Asgroundsforthismotion,Metroassertedthat 4 the materialundisputedfactsandthestatutesapplicabletothiscaseconclusivelyshowthat  p HermitageHillsSanitaryCompanyand/orRayWebsterowes$55,275.00totheMetropolitan  \ GovernmentforunpaidtippingfeesandthatGraysDisposalCompany,Inc.owes$66,979.80for H unpaidtippingfees,aswell.Metrodidnotseeksummaryjudgmentwithregardtothe$96,061.00 4 debtallegedlyowedbyGraysforunpaidtippingfeesincurredpriortoFebruary12,1997.     AppellantsfiledaresponseopposingMetrossummaryjudgmentmotion.Asthebasisfor  thisresponse,appellantsassertedthattheywerenotliablefortippingfeesimposedbyMetroasa  mandatoryelementofaflowcontrolregulationthatwaseventuallydeemedunconstitutionalbythe  SixthCircuitin WasteMgmt.v.MetropolitanGovt, 130F.3d731(6thCir.1997).Appellants l maintainedthattippingfeesareanunconstitutionaltax,notsubjecttocollection.Wefurther X  interpretappellantsresponseasastatementinherentlyopposingthecollectionoftippingfees D! imposedbyMetrouponappellantspriortotheSixthCircuitsdecisionin WasteMgmt. . 0"    ThecourtruledonMetrosMotionforLeavetoAmendtheComplaintbyorderofOctober $X" 31,2001,grantingMetrosmotioninpartanddenyinginpart.ThecourtallowedGraystoamend $D # itscomplainttoincludeanactionforthe$66,979.80inunpaidtippingfeesincurredafterthe %0!$  confirmationofGraysChapter11bankruptcyplan.WithrespecttoMetrosclaimfor$96,061.00 &"% inunpaidfeesincurredbyGrayspriortoFebruary12,1997,thecourtfoundthatitlacked  jurisdictiontoenforcetheOrderoftheU.S.BankruptcyCourtconfirmingGraysbankruptcyplan.     MetrosMotionforSummaryJudgmentcametobeheardonOctober19,2001.InanOrder  enteredOctober31,2001,thecourtgrantedMetrosmotionwithrespecttocasenumber983400 t II(III),findingthat nogenuineissueofmaterialfactexistsastothe$66,979.80inunpaidtipping ` feesincurredbyGraysDisposalCo.,Inc.andastothe$55,275.00inunpaidtippingfeesincurred L  byHermitageHillsSanitaryCompany,andthatDefendantsowesaidamountstotheMetropolitan 8  Government.ThisOrderwasfinalastocasenumber983317IIIandcasenumber983400II(III). $ t Appellantsfiledtimelynoticesofappealinbothmatters.  `   Onappeal,appellantspresentthefollowingissuesforreview:(1)Whetherthetrialcourt  8  erredinrulingthatthetippingfeeimposedbyMetroonsolidwastecollectedfromtheGSDand $  disposedofatThermaldoesnotconstitutedoubletaxation;(2)Whetherthetrialcourterredin   concludingthatthetippingfeeimposedbyMetrodoesnotviolateappellantsequalprotectionrights   under42U.S.C.1983;(3)Whetherthetrialcourterredinconcludingthatthetippingfeewasnot   aflowcontrolmechanismandthereforedidnot impacttheInterstateCommerceClauseofthe   UnitedStatesConstitution;and(4)WhetherthetrialcourterredinrulingthatMetrodidnotengage p intheunlawfulrestraintoftradethroughtheimpositionofthetippingfee,asMetrowasactingunder \ theauthorityofT.C.A.6811835and754101andthereforeimmunefromantitrustliability. H Astocasenumber983400II(III),thesoleissueforappealiswhetherappellantsareliablefor 4 paymentofunpaidtippingfeesincludingthoseincurredunderanillegalflowcontrolregulation;  p specifically,tippingfeesimposedpriortotheSixthCircuitsdecisionin WasteMgmt. onNovember  \ 5,1997. H   Amotionforsummaryjudgmentshouldbegrantedwhenthemovantdemonstratesthatthere   arenogenuineissuesofmaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatter   oflaw.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.03.Thepartymovingforsummaryjudgmentbearstheburdenof  demonstratingthatnogenuineissueofmaterialfactexists. Bainv.Wells ,936S.W.2d618,622  (Tenn.1997).Onamotionforsummaryjudgment,thecourtmusttakethestrongestlegitimateview  oftheevidenceinfavorofthenonmovingparty,allowallreasonableinferencesinfavorofthat l party,anddiscardallcountervailingevidence. Id .In Byrdv.Hall ,847S.W.2d208(Tenn.1993), X  ourSupremeCourtstated: D! 8  8`   Onceitisshownbythemovingpartythatthereisnogenuineissue #l! ofmaterialfact,thenonmovingpartymustthendemonstrate,by $X" affidavitsordiscoverymaterials,thatthereisagenuine,materialfact $D # disputetowarrantatrial.Inthisregard,Rule56.05providesthatthe %0!$ nonmovingpartycannotsimplyrelyuponhispleadingsbutmustset &"% forth specificfacts showingthatthereisagenuineissueofmaterial '#& factfortrial.(#'` x` x  Id .at21011(citationsomitted)(emphasisinoriginal). |*%)  h+&*   Summaryjudgmentisonlyappropriatewhenthefactsandthelegalconclusionsdrawnfrom  thefactsreasonablypermitonlyoneconclusion. Carvellv.Bottoms ,900S.W.2d23,26(Tenn.  1995).Sinceonlyquestionsoflawareinvolved,thereisnopresumptionofcorrectnessregarding  atrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgment. Bain ,936S.W.2dat622.Therefore,ourreviewofthe t trialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentis denovo ontherecordbeforethisCourt. Warrenv.Estate ` ofKirk, 954S.W.2d722,723(Tenn.1997). L    Here,thefactsarenotindispute,andtheonlyissuesarequestionsoflaw.Wetherefore $ t reviewthetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgment denovo ,withnopresumptionofcorrectness.  `   I.   8  -p  Thefirstissuepresentedforreviewiswhetherthetrialcourterredinconcludingthatthe   tippingfeeimposedbyMetroonsolidwastecollectedwithintheGSDanddisposedofatThermal   didnotamounttodoubletaxation.ThetrialcourtgrantedMetrossummaryjudgmentmotionas   totheissueofdoubletaxationonthebasisthatthetippingfeewasafee,notatax.Inreachingthis   decision,thecourtexplicitlyreliedupontwofactssetforthinMetrosStatementofUndisputed p MaterialFacts,filedinsupportoftheabovemotion.Thecourtwasnotablypersuadedbyevidence \ thatalloftheproceedsgeneratedfromthetippingfeeswereplacedintheSolidWasteDisposal H Fund,andthefactthattaxrevenuealonecouldnotcoverthecostofsolidwastedisposal. 4   IntheirresponseopposingMetrosMotionforSummaryJudgment,appellantssubmitthat  \ they havenoobjectiontothestatuteauthorizingMetrotoimposetippingfeestodefraythecost H ofsolidwaste.Appellantsprimarychallenge,asstatedintheiroriginalpetition,isthatthetipping 4 feeassessedagainstappellantsforthedisposalofresidentialsolidwastecollectedwithintheGSD   constitutedanimpermissibledoubletaxationonasingleprivilege.Appellantsargumentispremised   ontheconclusionthatGSDresidents hadalreadypaidfortheirgarbagedisposalthroughtheir  propertytaxes.Aspartoftheirargumentchallengingthetrialcourtsdecision,appellantsassertthat  thecourterroneouslyclassifiedthetippingfeesasfees,ratherthantaxes.    Thecourtnotesinitialconcernwithregardtowhetherappellants,asprivatebusinessentities X  attemptingtochallengeamunicipal taxonbehalfofcitizensoftheGSD,satisfythelegal D! requisitesforthirdpartystandingunderthefactsandcircumstancesofthiscase. 0"  8  8`   # XX]is#  ` x` x  W%&'()*+,(03 e?+ ` hp x X?8  8` !!# y#X]iX #X]iXXX]iy#X]iXXX]iIntheordinarycourse,alitigantmustasserthisorherownlegalrights #0" andinterests,andcannotrestaclaimtoreliefonthelegalrightsor $ # interestsofthirdparties.#X]iXXX]i2{# SE  X]iXXX]i DeptofLabor#X]iXXX]i|#Eb|   F  X]iXXX]iԀv.#X]iXXX]iM}#F|   E  X]iXXX]iTriplett #X]iXXX]i}#E}   F  :}X]iXXX]i,494U.S.715,720 %!$ (1990);#X]iXXX]i~#X]iXXX]iԀ#X]iXXX]i3#E  X]iXXX]i Singleton#X]iXXX]i#Ev   F  ~X]iXXX]iԀv.#X]iXXX]im#F`~   F I.  E  X]iXXX]iWulff #X]iXXX]iF#E(   F  ]X]iXXX]i,428U.S.106(1976).#X]iXXX]i#X]iXXX]iԀThisfundamental &!% restrictiononourauthorityadmitsofcertain,limitedexceptions.% c #X]iXXX]ip#%cF  X]iXXX]i#X]iXXX]i#F   X]iXXX]i We '"& haverecognizedtherightoflitigantstobringactionsonbehalfof% h #X]iXXX]i@#%hX]iXXX]iԀthird |(#' parties,providedthreeimportantcriteriaaresatisfied:Thelitigant h)$( musthavesufferedaninjuryinfact,thusgivinghimorhera T*%) sufficientlyconcreteinterestintheoutcomeoftheissueindispute @+&*  id .at112;4i bO  5  *#X]iXXX]i#E  E  F  6gbO{ght  7 X]iXXX]iԀthelitigantmusthaveacloserelationtothethirdparty id . ,,|'+ at113114;4j6 bO  5  dž#X]iXXX]iӇ#E  E  F  6^bOrght  76 X]iXXX]iandtheremustexistsomehindrancetothethirdparty's  abilitytoprotecthisorherown% k #X]iXXX]iʉ#%kXX]iXXX]iinterests. Id .at115116. Seealso  Craigv.Boren ,429U.S.190(1976).#X]iXXX]i#4mbO  5  F  6QbOeght  7X]iXXX]i` `   Powersv.Ohio ,499U.S.400,41011,111S.Ct.1364,1370,113L.Ed.2d411,425(1991).  V  S#X]iXXX]i+#X]iXXX]i   Applyingthethreepronganalysissetforthabove,wefindthatappellantsfailunderthefirst - } prong.Appellantsassertthattheyhavesuffereddirectfinanciallossorhardshipasaresultofthe  i tippingfeesbecausetheyarerequiredtopassthesefeesontocustomers,therebypromptingthe  U customerstoseekcheaperdisposalmeasures.Whilewerecognizethatappellantshaveexperienced  A  adegreeoffinanciallossasaresultoftheimpositionofthesefees,wefindthatthecustomer -  residents,notthehaulers,beartheultimatebruntofshoulderingthesecosts.Thustheresidents,   individuallyorasaclass,arebettersuitedtobringanactionchallengingMetrosimpositionof   tippingfeesuponthedisposalofGSDresidentialwaste.     Regardlessofthestandingconcern,wefindthatthetippingfeesimposedbyMetrodonot y constituteimpermissibledoubletaxation.BecausethepartiesagreethatT.C.A.519109and e T.C.A.68211835regulateandauthorizetheimposition,collection,anduseoftippingfeesby Q individualcountieswithregardtothecontrolanddispositionofsolidwaste,e  #  10      ׀weneedonlyaddress = theissueofwhetherthetippingfeesareanunlawful,excessivetax,orapermissiblestatutoryfee. )y   TheTennesseeSupremeCourthasexplicitlydefinedtheapplicabletestfordetermining Q whetherachargeimposedbythecountygovernmentisataxorafee,asfollows: = 8  8` !!Whetherthechargefordepositingwasteinalandfillisataxorafee,  eventhoughdenominatedatax,isdeterminedbyitspurpose.Atax  isarevenueraisingmeasureleviedforthepurposeofpayingthe  governmentsgeneraldebtsandliabilities.(internalcitationsomitted).  Afeeisimposedforthepurposeofregulatingaspecificactivityor u defrayingthecostofprovidingaserviceorbenefittothepartypaying a  thefee.M!` `   CityofTullahomav.BedfordCounty ,938S.W.2d408,412(Tenn.1997)(citationsomitted). %#u      $a!   Applyingthetestabovetothefactsinthiscase,wefindthatthecourtcorrectlydetermined   thatthetippingfeesimposedbyMetroare,infact,feesratherthantaxes.Asstated,thedispositive  factorindeterminingwhetherachargeisataxorafeeisthepurposeforwhichthechargeisimposed.  Considerationofwhetherpaymentofthetaxisvoluntaryorinvoluntaryisirrelevant.T.C.A.68 t 211835(b)statesthat [r]evenuefromtippingfeesatpubliclyownedsolidwastedisposalfacilities ` andincineratorsreceivedbycounties,municipalitiesandsolidwasteauthoritiesshallbeexpended L  onlyforsolidwastemanagementpurposes.MetrosubmittedtheaffidavitsofBillyDavisandGene 8  NolanasevidenceofMetroscompliancewithT.C.A.68211835(b).Bothaffiantstestifiedthat $ t allofthetippingfeesreceivedbyPublicWorkswereplacedintheSolidWasteDisposalFundto  ` coverthecostofsolidwastedisposalinDavidsonCounty.DavisandNolanfurtherstatedthatthese  L  feeswerenecessaryastaxrevenuesinDavidsonCountyaloneareinsufficienttofinancethecostof  8  garbagedisposal.Appellantsdonotdisputethefactthatthefeeswerecorrectlydepositedinand $  appliedfromtheSolidWasteDisposalFund,andevenstatedintheirresponseopposingMetros   MotionforSummaryJudgmentthattheyagreedthatthetaxesandfeeswereusedandapplied   accordingtothestatute.     Therefore,thereissufficient,undisputedevidenceintherecordthatalloftherevenue p generatedfromtippingfeeswasdepositedintheSolidWasteDisposalFundandusedexclusivelyto \ defraythecostofwastedisposalservicesinUSDperthemandatesofT.C.A.68211835(b).On H thisbasis,wefindthatthetrialcourtcorrectlydeterminedthatthetippingfeeisafeeandnotatax. 4 Thisissueisthereforewithoutmerit.  p   II.  H   Thenextissuepresentedbyappellantsiswhetherthetrialcourterredinconcludingthatthe   tippingfeesdonotviolateappellantsequalprotectionrightsunder42U.S.C.1983.Thebasisfor   appellants1983equalprotectionargumentissufficientlysetforthinthefollowingpassagefrom  appellantsresponseopposingMetrossummaryjudgmentmotionincasenumber983317III:  8  8` !!InthecaseatbarMetroprovidesbothrefusecollectionanddisposal. l ThedisputeisoverrefusedisposalwithMetronotchargingthesame X  amountandgivingequalprotectiontotheresidentsandcontract D! providers.Tobemorespecific,Metro,initsUrbanServiceDistrict 0"  functionofrefusecollection,collectsresidentsgarbageinUSDeither #l! throughitsownPublicWorkstrucksorthroughprivatecontract $X" haulers.Metrodoesnotrequiretheseresidentsorthehaulerstopay $D # adumpingortippingfeeinthat,iftheydid,thehaulerswouldaddthat %0!$ ontotheircontractprice....&"%` `  8  8` !!Ontheotherhand,MetrodoesnotgivecredittotheresidentsinGSD (#' thatliveoutsideUSD,althoughtheypaythesametaxforthesame )$( functionofrefusedisposalasresidentsandtaxpayersinGSDthatlive |*%) withintheboundariesoftheUrbanServiceDistrictorUSD. h+&* Therefore,thegarbagecollectorsinGSDoutsideUSDhavetoputin  theircontractswiththeircustomersnotonlythecostofcollection,but  enoughtopaytheestimated$6.00to$8.00perresidencedumpingfee.` `  MetrosfailuretoimposetippingfeesonUSDwastecollectedanddisposedofbyPublicWorks ` employeesorgovernmentcontractedhaulers,formsthebasisforappellants1983action. L    AtthecoreofappellantsequalprotectionissueisthequestionofwhetherUSDresidentsdo, $ t infact,payhigheroradditionaltaxesforgarbagedisposal,aboveandbeyondthetaxespaidbyGSD  ` residentsforthesameservice.IfUSDresidentsinfactpayahighertaxrateforthepurposeof  L  fundingdisposalservicesintheUSD,thenthequestionofwhetherthetippingfeesviolateappellants  8  equalprotectionrightsisamoot.Undersuchcircumstances,thetippingfeeswouldbejustifiedas $  abalancingcostasthesefeeswouldensurethatGSDresidentspaidthesameorsimilarpriceasUSD   residentsfortheprivilegeofdisposalservices.Thefactthatresidentialwastegeneratedwithinthe   USDisnotassessedatippingfeewouldnotraiseequalprotectionconcernsastheUSDresidents   wouldhavealreadypaidadditionaltaxestowardthefundingoftheseservices,notrequiredofGSD   residents. p   MetrosubmittedGeneNolansaffidavit,asevidencethatUSDresidentswererequiredtopay H ahighertaxthanGSDresidentsforadditionalgovernmentalservices.Nolanstated: 4 8  8` !!ResidentsoftheUrbanServicesDistrictpayahighertaxthandothe  \ residentsoftheGeneralServicesDistrict,becausebyCharter, H additionalgovernmentalservicesareperformedintheUrbanServices 4 District. ` `  8  8` !!AsaresultofthehighertaxrateintheUrbanServicesDistrict,Urban  ServicesDistrictresidentspayforgarbagedisposalthroughtaxes.  Therefore,tippingfeesarerebatedtogarbagehaulersbasedonthe  numberofUrbanServicesDistrictresidencesontheirroute.l` `  AppellantsenteredasexhibitstoNolansaffidavit,apagefromMetrosbudgetreportregardingthe D! budgetforsolidwasteinthefiscalyear2001,anda flowchartshowingthebreakdownoftheuse 0"  oftaxrevenueandtippingfeerevenuefordisposalofsolidwaste.Whilethereisundisputed #l! evidenceintherecordthatUSDresidentswerechargedahighertaxrateforadditionalgovernmental $X" services,f  #  11      ׀thereisnoevidencetoindicatetheexactpercentageoramountUSDresidentswere $D # chargedforgarbagedisposal.Noristhereevidenceintherecorddetailingtheprecisedifference %0!$ betweenUSDandGSDtaxrates.Therefore,weareunabletodeterminetheissueofequalprotection &"%  onthebasisofwhetherUSDresidentsdid,infact,payadditionaltaxesnotrequiredofGSDresidents, '#& OY     forsolidwastedisposal,assuchtaxesmayormaynothavebeenequivalenttothetippingfees  assessedagainstGSDresidentialwaste.Wethusproceedwithourequalprotectionanalysis.     Pursuantto42U.S.C.1983(Supp.2002) S# XX]iz# #.#: t # {#X]iX 8  8` !!Everypersonwho,undercolorofanystatute,ordinance,regulation,   custom,orusageofanyStateorTerritory,ortheDistrictofColumbia,   subjects,orcausestobesubjected,anycitizenoftheUnitedStatesor   otherpersonwithinthejurisdictionthereoftothedeprivationofany   rights,privileges,orimmunitiessecuredbytheConstitutionandlaws, z   shallbeliabletothepartyinjuredinanactionatlaw,suitinequity,or f  otherproperproceedingforredress,exceptthatinanyactionbrought R  againstajudicialofficerforanactoromissiontakeninsuchofficers >  judicialcapacity,injunctivereliefshallnotbegrantedunlessa *z  declaratorydecreewasviolatedordeclaratoryreliefwasunavailable.#X]iXXX]i#X]iXXX]if ` `  Acivilremedyisavailablepursuantto42U.S.C.1983whereapartyisdeprivedofafederally  protectedrightbyaperson(s)actingunderthecolorofstatelaw.Tomaintainanactionunderthis  statute,thepartychallengingthestatutemustprove:(1)thattheconductofthedefendantdeprived l theplaintiffofrights,privilegesorimmunitiesensuredbytheConstitutionorlawsoftheUnited X States;(2)thattheoffendingconductwascommittedbyapersonactingunderthecolorofstatelaw. D  SeeWestv.Atkins ,487U.S.42,4849,108S.Ct.2250,101L.Ed.2d40(1988).Inthecaseatbar, 0 appellantsallegethatMetro,g  #  12      ׀actingundertheauthorityofT.C.A.68211835,deprivedappellants l oftheirrighttobetreatedequallyunderthelawthroughtheimpositionoftippingfeesagainstone X class(GSDgarbagehaulers)andnotanother(USDgarbagehaulers).Wefindappellantsissue D withoutmerit. 0   Inordertoanalyzeappellantsequalprotectionclaim,wemustfirstdefinethemembersof ^ theclasstowhichappellantsbelong.Thefactsofthiscaselendtotwopotentialclassifications.First, J  appellantsclasscouldbedefinedtoincludeonlyGSDhaulers.Underthisclassification,GSD 6! haulerswouldbeaclassofhaulersentirelyseparateanddistinctfromUSDhaulers.Inthisinstance, ""r theequalprotectionrightsofappellantsasGSDhaulerswouldonlybecomparedandconsidered #^ againsttherightsofotherGSDhaulers.BecauseallGSDhaulersareassessedtippingfeeson #J  disposalofGSDwaste,appellantsequalprotectionargumentwouldfailunderthisclassification. $6 !   ThesecondpossibleclassificationwouldincludeallgarbagehaulerslicensedinDavidson d'"# County!GSDhaulersandUSDhaulersalike.Itisunderthisclassificationthatappellantsargument P(#$ challengingthe unequaltreatmentofGSDhaulersandUSDwouldrequireanequalprotection  analysis.Analyzingthiscasefromtheperspectivethatappellantsaremembersofaclassthatincludes  alllicensedgarbagehaulersinDavidsonCounty,regardlessofclientbase,wefindthatappellants  equalprotectionclaimfailsforthefollowingreasons. t   Appellantscitetonocaselawinsupportoftheirargumentthattheimpositionofatippingfee  B byamunicipalityagainstonefactionofasingleclass(GSDhaulers)andnotanother(USDhaulers),  . isaviolationofthechargedclasssequalprotectionrightsundertheUnitedStatesConstitution.The   onlycaselawcitedtobyappellantsstandsfortherulethatlocaltaxesmustmerelybeequaland   uniforminthedistricttowhichtheyapply. Nashville,C&S.L.Ry.v.MarshallCounty ,30S.W.2d    268,271(Tenn.1930)(citationsomitted).Ashasbeenestablished,thetippingfeeimposedbyMetro   isafee,notatax.Therefore,thecaselawrelieduponbyappellantsisunpersuasive.Wefindno z  othercaselawprovidingthattheimpositionofnonuniformfeesagainstmembersofthesameclass f  necessarilyconstitutesanequalprotectionviolation.Althoughnotnecessarilycontrollinginthecase R  atbar,wecitetolanguagefromanearlierdecisionofthisCourtassupportforourconclusionthat >  theimpositionofnonuniformfeeswithinasingleclassdoesnotautomaticallyraiseequalprotection *z concerns. Thatonegroupisrequiredtopaymorethananothergroupforthesameprivilegeisnot f inandofitselfaviolationoftheEqualProtectionClause. S&PEnterprises,Inc.v.Cityof R Memphis ,672S.W.2d213,216(Tenn.Ct.App.1983)(citing Baldwinv.Fish&GameCommn > ofMontana ,436U.S.371,98S.Ct.1852,56L.Ed.2d354(1978)). *   Becauseappellantsequalprotectionargumenthingessolelyonthetheorythatimpositionof X nonuniformfeeswithinasingleclassofindividualsisanequalprotectionviolation,wefindthat, D underthecircumstances,thefactsandthelegalconclusionsdrawnfromthefactsreasonablypermit 0 onlyoneconclusion!thatMetrodidnotviolateappellantsequalprotectionrightsthroughthe l assessmentoftippingfees.Therefore,wefindthatthetrialcourtcorrectlygrantedsummary X judgmentinfavorofMetroonappellants42U.S.C.1983claim. D   Intheeventthatappellantscouldbeconsideredtohaveaconstitutionallyprotectedrightto r  befreefromtheimpositionofnonuniformtippingfees,wemaintainthatthetrialcourtsgrantof ^! summaryjudgmentwasproperasaclearandrationalbasisexistedtojustifythesefees.Thereisno J" evidenceintherecord,andappellantshavecitedtonolegalauthorityinsupportofsuchafinding, 6# thattheappellantsweremembersofa suspectclass.l  #  13      ׀Noristhereevidenceorcontrollingauthority "$r   tosuggestthattherighttobefreefromanonuniformtippingfeeisafundamentalrightalongthe %^ ! linesoftherightstoprocreate,vote,orengageininterstatetravel.Therefore,wefindthatappellants  equalprotectionclaimmustbeexaminedunderarationalbasisanalysis.o  #  14           RationalbasisanalysishasbeendiscussedatlengthbytheTennesseeSupremeCourt,andthe + applicationofthisanalysishasbeenexplainedasfollows:  8  8` !!Theconceptofequalprotectionespousedbythefederalandourstate E  constitutionsguaranteesthatallpersonssimilarlycircumstancedshall 1  betreatedalike. F.S.RoysterGuanoCo.v.Virginia ,253U.S.412,  m 415,40S.Ct.560,562,64L.Ed.989(1920); seePlylerv.Doe ,457  Y U.S.202,102S.Ct.2382,72L.Ed.2d786(1982); Stateexrel.Dept  E  ofSocialServs.v.Wright ,736S.W.2d84(Tenn.1987).Conversely, 1  thingswhicharedifferentinfactoropinionarenotrequiredbyeither   constitutiontobetreatedthesame. Plyler ,457U.S.at216,102S.Ct.   at2394.Theinitialdiscretiontodeterminewhatisdifferentand   whatisthesameresidesinthelegislaturesoftheStates,and   legislaturesaregivenconsiderablelatitudeindeterminingwhatgroups } aredifferentandwhatgroupsarethesame. Id .Inmostinstancesthe i judicialinquiryintothelegislativechoiceislimitedtowhetherthe U classificationshaveareasonablerelationshiptoalegitimatestate A interest. Id .; seeStatev.SouthernFitnessandHealth,Inc. ,743 -} S.W.2d160,164(Tenn.1987); Harrisonv.Schrader ,569S.W.2d i 822,825(Tenn.1978).U` `    D  TennesseeSmallSchoolSys.v.McWherter ,851S.W.2d139,153(Tenn.1993)(quoting Doev.   Norris ,751S.W.2d834,841(Tenn.1988)).    Undertherationalbasisstandard, ifsomereasonablebasiscanbefoundfortheclassification, j orifanystateoffactsmayreasonablybeconceivedtojustifyit,theclassificationwillbeupheld.  V  McWherter ,851S.W.2dat153.TheTennesseeSupremeCourt,in Harrisonv.Schrader ,569  B S.W.2d822(Tenn.1978)furtherexaminedtheparametersandapplicationoftherationalbasistest:  . 8  8` !!Theclassificationmustrestuponareasonablebasis.Ifithasa \  reasonablebasis,itisnotunconstitutionalmerelybecauseitresultsin H  someinequality.Reasonablenessdependsuponthefactsofthecase 4  andnogeneralrulecanbeformulatedforitsdetermination.(internal  p  citationsomitted). \ ` `  8  8` !!Theburdenofshowingthataclassificationisunreasonableand  arbitraryisplacedupontheindividualchallengingthestatute;andif v anystateoffactscanbereasonablyconceivedtojustifythe b classificationorifthereasonablenessoftheclassisfairlydebatable, N thestatutemustbeupheld.(internalcitationsomitted).:` `  8  8` !!Beforetheclassificationwillbeheldtoviolatetheequalprotection  guaranty,itmustbeshownthatithasnoreasonableornaturalrelation  tothelegislativeobjective.(internalcitationsomitted).Inaddition,  thestatutemustapplyaliketoallwhofallwithin,orcanreasonablybe | broughtwithintheclassification.(citationsomitted).h` `   Id .at82526. 6   Metrocontendsthat [e]veniftherebateofthetippingfeetoUSDhaulersamountsto d" differenttreatment,theimpositionofnonuniformtippingfeesissupportedbyarationalbasis!the P# conservationofpublicfunds.MetroreliesupontheaffidavitsofDavisandNolanasevidencethat <$ theimpositionoftippingfeesagainstPublicWorksorthegovernmentcontractedhaulerswould (%x  resultinnonetgaintotheSolidWasteDisposalFund. &d!  8  8` !!TheMetropolitanGovernmentwouldonlybechargingafeetoitself (#" andmovingthesamemoneyoutofandbackintotheSolidWaste ~)$# Fund.Therewouldbenogainbut,invariably,theMetropolitan j*%$ Governmentwouldincurexpensesinemployeetimeandaccounting V+&% forabsolutelynopurpose.ThesameistruewithrespecttoMetros  contractorswhocollectandhaulresidentialsolidwastewithinthe  USD.ThecompensationforthesehaulersisalsotakenfromMetros  solidwastefund.WeretheMetropolitanGovernmenttochargethese t haulersatippingfee,theywouldonlyraisetheirbidstothe ` MetropolitanGovernmentbythesameamountinordertorecoverthe L  costofdoingbusiness.Theincreaseincontractpricewouldcome 8  fromtheSolidWasteFund,andfeereceiptswouldbeputbackinto $ t thefund.Thesituationisthesameasinthecaseofsolidwaste  ` deliveredbyMetropolitanPublicWorks.Thus,chargingatippingfee  L  tothosehaulersresultsinnonetgaintotheSolidWasteFund,but  8  guaranteesmoreexpenseinadministration.$ ` `  BasedontheswornstatementsofDavisandNolan,citedinMetrosbriefandenteredaspartofthe R  record,wearepersuadedthatthestateofthefactsinthiscasemayreasonablypermitonlyone >  conclusion!thatarationalbasisexiststojustifythedifferentialtreatmentofGSDandUSDhaulers. *z Wethereforeupholdthetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentonappellants1983action. f   Thisissueiswithoutmerit.   III.  # X  Thethirdissueforreviewiswhetherthetrialcourterredinconcludingthatthetipping Q feeswerenotaflowcontrolmechanismand,asimposed,didnotimpacttheCommerceClauseof = theUnitedStatesConstitution.Theexactlanguageofthecourtsrulingreads: )y 8  8` !!TheCourtfindsthatthetippingfeeisnotcoercive,andtherefore,is  notaflowcontrolmechanism.TheCourtfurtherfindsthat  Plaintiffsclaimthatthetippingfeeisameansofcontrollingthe   flowofsolidwastedoesnotimpacttheCommerceClauseofthe k! UnitedStatesConstitution,andshouldbedismissedonsummary W" judgment.C#` `  AppellantschallengethisrulingonthepremisethatthetippingfeechargedbyMetroisaflow %!  controlmeasure,imposedinviolationoftheInterstateCommerceClauseoftheUnitedStates &!! Constitution,asdeterminedbytheSixthCircuitin WasteMgmt.,Inc.ofTennesseev.Metro. '"" GovtofNashvilleandDavidsonCounty ,130F.3d731(6thCir.1997). (##   )%$   In WasteMgmt. ,plaintiffWasteManagement,Inc.ofTennessee( WMIT)p  #  15      ׀sought   injunctiverelieffromaflowcontrolregulationandawastedisposalfeeordinanceenactedbythe  MetropolitanGovernmentofNashvilleandDavidsonCounty( Metropolitan).q  #  16      ׀ Id .at733.The  districtcourtgrantedapermanentinjunctionoftheprovisionsinthewastedisposalfeeordinance t thatrequiredNashvilleThermalTransferCorp.( NTTC)toassessapertontippingfeeonall ` disposedsolidwaste,andfurtherrequiredallgarbagecollectorstopayawastedisposalfeeto L  MetropolitanforwastedumpedatsitesotherthanNTTC. Id .at735.Thisfeewasrequiredof 8   anycollectoroperatingafacilitywithinMetroforwastecollectedwithinMetro,andbyany $ t collectorcollectingsuchwasteanddisposingofitoutsideofMetro. Id .at734.Thedistrict  ` court,however,refusedtoenjointheflowcontrolregulation. Id .at735.Amendmentstothe  L  flowcontrolregulationrequiredthat:  8  8  8` !![A]llpersonscollecting,hauling,orremovingwastefromMetrobe f  licensed;thatthewastebedisposedofonlyatsitesapprovedby R  Metro;andthatallresidentialwastecollectedwithinMetrobe >  disposedofatawastetoenergyfacilityownedbyMetroand *z operatedbytheNashvilleThermalTransferCorp.( NTTC).f` `   Id .at733.    Initsopinion,theSixthCircuitbeganwithanexaminationofWMITsclaimthatthe b districtcourterredinrulingthatMetropolitansflowcontrolregulationdidnotviolatethe N CommerceClause. Id .at736.Thecourtdeterminedthattheflowcontrolregulationdid,infact, : discriminateagainstinterstatecommerce,astheprovisionsofthisregulationrequired thatall & residentialwastebesenttoNTTC,therebypreventingplaintifffromdisposingofsuchwasteata  cheaperfacility,andthreateningthewellbeingofplaintiffsowndumpsites. Id .(emphasisin  original).Uponreachingthisconclusion,thecourtthenturneditsfocustothedecisionofwhether  Metropolitandemonstrated,underrigorousscrutiny,thatithasnoothermeanstoadvancea  legitimatelocalinterest. Id .(quoting C&ACarbone,Inc.v.Clarkstown ,511U.S.383,392, r  114S.Ct.1677,128L.Ed.2d399(1994).FindingMetropolitansflowcontrolregulation ^! faciallydiscriminatory,thecourtreasonedthatregulationcouldnotwithstandrigorousscrutiny J" becausetherewereotherlessrestrictivemeansofadvancingthelegitimatelocalinterestsofthe 6# municipality,includingtheimpositionofcompetitivetippingfeesforwastedisposalatthe "$r  governmentownedfacility. Id . %^ ! Ї  Withregardtothewastedisposalfeeprovisions,thecourtagreedwiththedecisionofthe  districtcourt,findingthattheprovisionswerefaciallydiscriminatorybecausethey treat[ed]  MetroandnonMetrointerestsdifferently.r  #  17      ׀ Id .at737.Onenoteddifferencewasthefactthat  theseprovisionsdidnotimposefeesupondisposalsatNTTCorotherMetropolitanownedplants, t butonlyuponwastedisposedofatnonMetropolitanfacilities. Id .Thecourtfurtherconcluded ` thatthedistrictcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretioningrantingapermanentinjunctionagainstthe L  enforcementofMetropolitanswastedisposalfeeprovisions,asMetropolitanfailedto 8   demonstratethatithadnoothermeansofadvancingalegitimatelocalinterest,outsideofthe $ t feeprovisions. Id .  `   Forthesereasons,thecourtreversedtheportionofthedistrictcourtsorderdenying O   WMITinjunctiverelieffromenforcementoftheflowcontrolregulation,andaffirmedthe ;  segmentoftheordergrantingWMITinjunctivereliefagainsttheenforcementofthewaste 'w  disposalfeeprovisions. Id .at739. c    WerejectappellantsargumentthatthetippingfeesimposedbyMetroconstituteanillegal   flowcontroldeviceunder WasteMgmt. .Flowcontrolmechanisms,consideredinthecontextof } solidwastedisposal,aredevicesimplementedbyalocalorstategovernmenttorequirehaulersto i disposeofsolidwasteatgovernmentapprovedwastefacilitiesorwithinaspecificgeographic U jurisdiction.Ifthesemechanismsdiscriminateagainstinterstatecommerce bytreatinginstate A andoutofstateinterestsdifferently,benefittingtheformerandburdeningthelatter,itisperse -} invalidunlesstheStatehasnoothermeanstoadvancealegitimatelocalinterest. Huish i Detergents,Inc.v.WarrenCounty,Kentucky ,214F.3d707,71213(6thCir.2000)(quoting C U &ACarbone,Inc.v.TownofClarkstown ,511U.S.383,392,114S.Ct.1677,128L.Ed.2d A 399(1994)). -   Wedonotfindthatthetippingfees,asassessedbyMetrounderthecircumstancesofthis [ particularcase,qualifyasflowcontrolmechanisms.Thetippingfeesarenotdesignedtoforce G haulersintheNashville,DavidsonCountyareatostrictlyandexclusivelydisposeofcollected 3 wasteatThermal.Rather,thesefeesareassessedasameansofsupplementingMetrosSolid  o WasteDisposalFundbychargingfeesforrefusecollectedoutsideoftheUSD.Metroisnot  ![  hoardingwaste,norisittryingtopreventtheflowofwasteintotheUSDfromotherstatesor !G geographicregions,specificallytheGSD.Further,wefindnoevidenceofanystatuteor "3 ordinance,andaredirectedtonostatuteorordinance,thatrequireshaulerstodisposeof #  residentialsolidwastecollectedinDavidsonCounty,ataMetroownedfacility.Therefore, $ ! appellantschallengetotheapplicationoftippingfeesonthegroundsthatthesefeesareunlawful % " flowcontrolmechanismsisunfounded. &!#   '"#$   Moreover,werecognizethatthecourtin WasteMgmt. impliedlynotedinitsassessment   ofMetropolitansflowcontrolregulation,thatcompetitivetippingfeesconstitutedanacceptable  meansofadvancingthelegitimateenvironmentalandfinancialinterestsofthemunicipality.   WasteMgmt. ,130F.3dat736.Onthisbasis,weareconvincedthat WasteMgmt. doesnotstand t forthepositionthattippingfeesareillegalflowcontrolmechanismsevenwhenimposedseparate ` andapartfromanillegalflowcontrolregulation. L    Thisissueisthereforewithoutmerit.     IV.  H      WenextaddresstheissueofwhetherthetrialcourterredinfindingthatMetrowas   immunefromantitrustliabilityforthereasonthatitwasactingundertheauthorityofT.C.A.   6811835and754101inimposingthetippingfees.Thetrialcourtsgrantofsummary   judgmentonthisissuewasfurtherbasedontheconclusionthattheParkerImmunityDoctrine  appliedunderthecircumstancesatbar.Whileitisunclearwhetherappellantsraisedthisissueon v appeal,wewillconsidertheissueforthereasonsthatitwascitedasacauseofactionin b appellantsoriginalpetition,wasexpresslyconsideredanddecidedbythetrialcourt,andwas N arguablyincludedaspartofappellantsbrieftothisCourtviathefollowingstatement: :  Recoupingthesetippingfeesfromtheircustomerswhileattemptingtocompeteagainsthaulers &v whowerenotalwayschargedatippingfeebyMetrocreatedanunfairdisadvantagetothe b Appellants. N   IntheirresponseopposingMetrosMotionforSummaryJudgment,appellantscontend | thatMetroengagedintherestraintoftrade,inviolationof15U.S.C.1and2( ShermanAct) h oftheFederalAntitrustAct,throughtheimpositionoftippingfeesonGSDgarbagehaulers. T Appellantsrestraintoftradeargumentisbestsummarizedinthefollowingpassagefromtheir @ response: , | 8  8` !!ThePlaintiffsaffidavitss  #  18      ׀supportthefactsofhowtheywere " damagedduetotherestraintoftradeandtheillegaltaxingofthefee # ortax.AsaremindertotheCourt,andassostatedintheaffidavits, $ thatMetrogavetheircontracthaulerscreditbaseduponweightor n%  tonnageperresidence,butinfacttheresidencedidnotgeneratethat Z&!! muchtonnageorweight,andtheycommingledrefusecollectedin  GSDbutoutsideUSD.Withthegarbagebeingcommingled,the  privatehaulerswhichwerethePlaintiffscompetitors,didnothave  topayanyorasmuchtoMetrosotherefore,theychargeacheaper t ratetotheGSDresidentsoutsideUSDcausingthePlaintiffstolose ` moneywhentheyhadtopaythetax.Thiswasarestraintoftrade, L  unfaircompetition,andputPlaintiffWebsteroutofbusinessand 8  hasforcedPlaintiffGraytoseekfinancialrelief.$ t` `    Under15U.S.C.1, [e]verycontract,combinationintheformoftrustorotherwise,or    conspiracy,inrestraintoftradeorcommerceamongtheseveralStates,orwithforeignnations,is   herebydeclaredtobeillegal.15U.S.C.1(2002).Section2furtherprovides: z  8  8` !!Everypersonwhoshallmonopolize,orattempttomonopolize,or   combineorconspirewithanyotherpersonorpersons,to   monopolizeanypartofthetradeorcommerceamongtheseveral   States,orwithforeignnations,shallbedeemedguiltyofafelony...}` `  15U.S.C.2(2002).  K   TheMetropolitanGovernmentofNashville,DavidsonCounty,Tennessee,isa y municipalityauthorizedtoimposetippingfeesuponthedisposalofsolidwastepursuanttoT.C.A. e 68211835(a)andT.C.A.754103(e)(1).Section68211835(a)(Supp.2002)provides: Q 8  8` !!Eachcounty,municipality,orsolidwasteauthoritywhichownsa  municipalsolidwastedisposalfacilityorincineratormayimposea   tippingfeeuponeachtonofmunicipalsolidwasteoritsvolume  equivalentreceivedatsuchsolidwastedisposalfacilityor  incinerator.Suchatippingfeeshallbesetbythegoverningbodyof   thecountyormunicipality,orbytheboardofdirectorsofthesolid k! wasteauthority.Thistippingfeeshallbecollectedbytheoperator W" ofthepubliclyownedmunicipalsolidwastedisposalfacilityor C# incineratorandremittedtotheowner.Thefeeimposedmaybe /$ equalto,oraportionof,theestimatedcostofprovidingsolidwaste %k  managementservicesonapertonorvolumeequivalent.Suchfull &W!! costshallbedeterminedpursuanttotheuniformsolidwaste &C"" accountingsystemdevelopedbythecomptrollerofthetreasury.'/##` `  FurtherauthorizationisgrantedunderT.C.A.754103(e)(1)(1998),whichstates: ]*%%  +&& 8  8` !!(e)Amunicipalityisauthorizedtoestablish,levy,andcollectfees,  rates,orchargesinconnectionwith:` `  8  8` !!8 ` ` (1)Thecollection,delivery,sale,purchase,or j disposal,whetheratthesiteofanenergyproduction  V facility,alandfill,orotherwise,ofsolidwaste. B k k Fromthelanguageofthestatutescitedabove,itisevidentthatMetroisauthorizedtoimposeand p  collecttippingfeesuponthedisposalofsolidwaste.Wefindnostatutorylanguagetosuggest \  thatthetippingfeesareintendedtocreateorfunctionasarestraintoftrade.Nordowefindthat H  theprivatecontractsenteredintobyMetroandtheprivateUSDhaulersconstitutesacontractin 4  restraintoftrade.Therecordcontainsnoevidencethatappellantswereforeclosedfrombidding  p  ontheUSDcollectionroutes.Further,thereisnoevidenceofanykindthatthepubliclybid  \  contractsallowedMetrotocreateapermanent,oreventemporary,monopolyonthesolidwaste H  disposalindustry.Althoughappellantssuggestthattheyhadnootheroptionbuttodisposeof 4 theircollectedwasteattheThermalplantasaresultofthefactthattherewerenootherdisposal   facilitiesnearby,wefindnoevidencetoindicatethatMetrorequiredappellantstodisposeofthe   wasteatThermalt  #  19      ׀afterNovember5,1997!thedatethe WasteMgmt. decisionwasfiled  injoiningMetrosexistingflowcontrolregulation.    Forthereasonsabove,andbecauseappellantsdonotchallengethelegalityofthestatutes b authorizingtheimpositionoftippingfeesonthedisposalofsolidwaste,wefindthatMetrodid N notengageintherestraintoftradeinviolationoftheShermanAct.Weaffirmthetrialcourts : grantofsummaryjudgmentinfavorofMetroonthisbasis,andthereforeneednotaddressthe & issueofwhetherMetrowasentitledtostateactionimmunityundertheParkerImmunityDoctrine.    V.  @ 4   0 @ 0 @ 4  Thesoleissueraisedonappealincasenumber983400II(III)iswhetherthetrialcourt ! erredingrantingsummaryjudgmentinfavorofMetro.PursuanttoanOrderenteredDecember6, " 2001,thetrialcourtfoundthat: #  $%  8  8` !![N]ogenuineissueofmaterialfactexistsastothe$66,979.80in  unpaidtippingfeesincurredbyGraysDisposalCo.,Inc.andasto  the$55,275.00inunpaidtippingfeesincurredbyHermitageHills  SanitaryCompany,andthatDefendantsowesaidamountstothe t MetropolitanGovernment.`` `  IncludedamongtheabovecitedtotalsaretippingfeesimposedbyMetroagainsttherespective  . appellantsondisposalsreceivedpriortoNovember5,1997.Specifically,wenotethatthe   $66,979.80figurelistedinthecourtsOrderrepresentsunpaidtippingfeesincurredbyGrays   afterconfirmationofitsChapter11bankruptcyplanonFebruary12,1997.Thereforethisfigure    includestippingfeesassessedagainstGrayspriortoNovember5,1997,andpursuanttoan   illegalflowcontrolregulation.AbalancesheetforWebsterwasenteredasanexhibitintothe z  record.However,fromourreadingofthedocument,itisdifficulttoascertaintheprecise f  percentageofthe$55,275.00debtlistedinthecourtsOrderabove,thatrepresentstheamount R  WebsterwaschargedintippingfeesfromNovember5,1997throughDecemberof1997,thedate >  ofhislastdisposalatThermal. *z   Appellantsinthiscasecontendthatthetippingfeesimposedaspartoftheflowcontrol  regulationthatwasenjoinedbytheSixthCircuitasaviolationoftheUnitedStatesCommerce  Clause,aretheillegalproductofanunconstitutionalregulation.Appellants,indenyingliability  forunpaidtippingfeesimposedunderthisregulation,assert: l 8  8` !!DuringtheperiodoftimeforwhichAppellantsclaim : reimbursementanddamagesherein,theAppellantsweresubjectto & thissameflowcontrol.Inadditiontothis,theAppellantsdidnot  owntheirownlandfillsuchasWasteManagement,butdenyingthe  Appellantstherighttoseekoutcheaperlocationstodisposeofthe  refusecollectedcertainlythreatenedthewellbeingoftheirbusiness  interests.r ` `  8  8` !!TheAppellantssubmitthatbeingsubjectedtotheflowcontrol "@ measures,includingthe tippingfeeviolatestheCommerceClause #, oftheU.S.Const.ArtI,8,cl.3asdescribedin WasteMgmt.,Inc. $  ofTennesseev.Metro.GovtofNashvilleandDavidsonCounty , %!! 130F.3d731(6thCir.1997).&!"` `  AMetroarguesthatstatutoryauthorizationexistedasearlyas1975,fortheimpositionoftipping  *Z%% feesonthedisposalofsolidwasteatmunicipalwasteincinerators.Onthisbasis,Metrotakes *F&& issuewithappellantsattackonthe legalityofthetippingfees.Whilewedonotdisputethat +2'' suchauthorityexistedorexiststoimposetippingfeesonsolidwastedisposal,wedonotanalyze  appellantsargumentasanattackonthelegalityofthetippingfeesasaseparateregulation.  Rather,weanalyzeappellantspositionasanattackonthelegalityofthetippingfeesasmandatory  feesrequiredaspartofanunconstitutionalflowcontrolmeasure. t   Tothisextent,wefindthatthetippingfeesimposedbyMetroasamandatoryelementof  B theadjudgedillegalflowcontrolregulation,areanunconstitutionalviolationofappellantsrights  . underthecommerceclause.Appellantscannotbeheldliableforthepaymentoffees,where   suchfeeswereimposedinvoluntarilyuponappellantsasamandatoryrequirementofanillegal   municipalregulation.       Ourfindingthatthetippingfees,whenimposedasamandatoryelementofanillegalflow 1  controlregulation,violateappellantscommerceclauserights,isnotinappositeofourholding   thatthetippingfeescurrentlyimposedbyMetrodonotinfringeuponappellantsconstitutional   rights.TheSixthCircuitsdecisionin WasteMgmt. clearlysuggeststhattippingfeesareavalid   alternativemeasuretoflowcontrolregulations.Whensuchfeesareimposedindependently,   ratherthanasanessentialelementofaflowcontrolregulation,wefindthattippingfeesarea } valid,legalsolutionfordefrayingthecostofsolidwastedisposalinthemetropolitanarea.On i thisbasis,weholdthatappellantsremainliableforthepaymentofanyunpaidtippingfees U accumulatedbytherespectiveappellantsafterNovember5,1997. A   We,therefore,vacatethetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentincasenumber98  3400II(III).Weremandthiscausetothetrialcourtfordeterminationoftherespectivetotals  owingbyeachrespectiveappellantforunpaidtippingfeesaccumulatedafterNovember5,1997.  Weaffirmtheorderofthetrialcourtgrantingsummaryjudgmentincasenumber983317III.  Costsoftheappealaretaxedonehalftoappellant,GraysDisposalCompany,Inc.,andRay o Websterd/b/aHermitageHillsSanitaryCompanyandtheirsurety,andonehalftoappellee, [ MetropolitanGovernmentofNashville,DavidsonCounty,Tennessee. G    `     h     ____________________________________      `     h     W.FRANKCRAWFORD,PRESIDING "T    `     h     JUDGE,WESTERNSECTION #X]iXXX]i## XX]i#