ÿWPC_? "ê?R2kð™Âžùeº£*ÇjCú™ÀžªÄ ºðÀÂápõHPÏ©lX§â#ú…šo‹­è;½3ánžŸrpõÓTK™^üJˆu@•ý­‘åÝ<ŠQȣ׌h¯TR´ŠAÙ"©%(mèüÐf*Y\w[eên‰’ýÛŒ™øþ6×]TîÆK=êÍ» DñW‘<{ê#Õ4î»ÊzŠÉ]åbnT¡~ˆÐÏ‘_^åý"·¥ ežÛ§Ú*Õ®aOËø??Ë5¤ùˆë/’ÙlÝ è†ïËhï+£P™™âN¼B€ÙäláW¥¨,ÏÍ=΂Ù;ÄÊ?Z‘Ì âàÂßFÝuyýµýÑž¸§4&gÚƒÈj‡ ùàsPŒCT¡ûH•úþs¡!€·$’™Á½32…ñLð7ÈÆ¤d† µ?ßÔ3À§?¸r[±” s_Ö gpÒmUìFº¯»èh˜ Õõ8€±E÷ÒpÆUFÕɤ£~S‡OSéÔÛ4nwˆ Œ «\¯6Ž0ûê9/¬Ã´î‹/;í }QFÅ#%Ñ ë—ë±Ñ“9]™ð\\;]|c¹„&ö-Ò3æÿõúöëþ"']9a}ÒJp@¥Ëyº‚D]¯®›FÃC/©ëZ¼#ÉH ^  % 0ˆ#U/N«wù4ý zÒ‹]l mn 0D…ÆÉÆÆUÆãáNÄ"Æ,èE¾ÌÔ½ ¹]¾½Ô‘½S ¾!¾Î!Œ"¾œ&¾Z'¾(¾Ö(?”)¦Ó*½y+66,3l-AŸ.à0bà1à1à1Èè1è1è1¤°2®T4T4T4 0N66666666666666666666666666 0ëP6P6P6P6 B;7;7 0¤X7 D3ü7 D-/8 0K\8\8 AS§8Æú8 0¤À9 0Dd: A«¨:¨:¨:¨:¨:¨:¨:¨:¨:¨:¨:¨:¨:¨:¨:¨:¨:¨:¨:¨:¨:¨:¨:¨:$S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;S;èw>˜\\IB01S01\CLERK1NASÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0“™“/Ï »(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularqdj/¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ÙÝ ƒRâ•$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî©ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔCuriously,€even€though€Mr.€King€had€already€perfected€a€de€novo€appeal€from€the€city€courtððs€judgment,€heÐ À Ðasserted€in€his€petition€for€common„law€writ€of€certiorari€that€he€was€ð ðotherwise€without€a€plain,€speedy€or€Ô_ÔadequateÔ_ÔÐ „Ä ÐÔ_Ôremedy.ððÔ_Ô€€ Heldman COAplac[ingallow[ingGovtChattin"www.state.tn.us sos amendments.pdf mtasv]iolationsIrick CasHumphries SavMunford JudCommn KVOSUpchurch S.W.Akbil Amar L.J.Colten YerMorfordStricklandArwoodAnglinDursoNolensvillewww.mtas&notes.ips.utk.eduCHARTERS.NSF*Nolensville.cht.pdfCaudillGrissomPryor "Ý ƒRâ•$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî©ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€òòBarrettóó€decision€was€later€reversed€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.€€òòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Davisóó,€54Ð À ÐS.W.3d€248€(Tenn.€2001).€€ ´Ý ƒRâ•$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú21Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî©ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Davisóó,€54€S.W.3d€at€270. ÂÝ ƒRâ•$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî©ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Davisóó,€54€S.W.3d€at€263,€265,€266,€267. ³Ý ƒRâ•$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî©ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Davisóó,€54€S.W.3d€at€265. ¯Ý ƒRâ•$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú25Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî©ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòFrance€v.€Stateóó,€65€Tenn.€478,€485€(1873). ´Ý ƒRâ•$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî©ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Davisóó,€54€S.W.3d€at€263. ³Ý ƒRâ•$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî©ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Davisóó,€54€S.W.3d€at€261. ¸Ý ƒRâ•$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî©ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Davisóó,€54€S.W.3d€at€264,€269. ³Ý ƒRâ•$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî©ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Davisóó,€54€S.W.3d€at€265. ´Ý ƒRâ•$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî©ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Davisóó,€54€S.W.3d€at€270.€ ´Ý ƒRâ•$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî©ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Davisóó,€54€S.W.3d€at€271. Ý ƒRâ•$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú20Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî©ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔNolensvilleððs€Charter€gave€the€Board€of€Mayor€and€Aldermen€the€authority€to€ð ðprohibit,€abate,€suppress,Ð À Ðprevent€and€regulate€all€acts€.€.€.€[and]€use€of€property€.€.€.€detrimental,€or€liable€to€be€detrimental,€to€the€health,€morals,Ð „Ä Ðcomfort,€safety,€convenience€or€welfare€of€the€inhabitants€of€the€municipalityðð€and€to€ð ðinspect€all€buildings,€lands€andÐ Hˆ Ðplaces€as€to€their€condition€for€health,€cleanliness€and€safety,€and€when€necessary,€prevent€their€use€and€require€anyÐ  L Ðalteration€or€changes€necessary€to€make€them€healthful,€clean€or€safe.ðð€€òòNolensville,€Tn.,€Charter€óóðð€6„2„201(22),€(25)Ð Ð Ð(2002),€found€at€http://www.mtas„notes.ips.utk.edu/public/CHARTERS.NSF/dbf38d8c0544e084852568930071603e/Ð ”Ô Ð3bca190f00d55167852568cc0061db57/$FILE/Nolensville.cht.pdf.€€€ ´Ý ƒRâ•$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî©ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Davisóó,€54€S.W.3d€at€272. ´Ý ƒRâ•$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî©ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Davisóó,€54€S.W.3d€at€272. ´Ý ƒRâ•$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî©ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Davisóó,€54€S.W.3d€at€272. ´Ý ƒRâ•$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî©ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Davisóó,€54€S.W.3d€at€272. 5Ý ƒRâ•$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî©ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔResolution€of€June€7,€2000,€Sen.€J.€Res.€629,€2000€Tenn.€Priv.€Acts€&€Res.€604;€Resolution€of€May€1,€2002,Ð À ÐSen.€J.€Res.€555,€2002€Tenn.€Priv.€Acts€&€Res.€1014„15. œÝ ƒRâ•$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú19Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî©ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTenn.€Const.€art.€XI,€ðð€3. ³Ý ƒRâ•$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî©ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Davisóó,€54€S.W.3d€at€266. ,Ý ƒRâ•$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî©ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔSee€http://www.state.tn.us/sos/election/results/2002„11/amendments.pdf.€€The€amendment€required€826,584Ð À Ðvotes€for€ratification;€it€received€only€702,434. )Ý ƒRâ•$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú22Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî©ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€municipal€court€determined€that€Mr.€King€had€not€complied€with€the€ordinance€for€sixty„two€days€andÐ À Ðfined€him€$300€for€each€day€of€non„compliance. 7Ý ƒRâ•$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú26Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî©ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSee€also€State€ex€rel.€Fuller€v.€Ô_ÔMullinaxÔ_Ôóó,€269€S.W.2d€72,€77€(Mo.€1954);€òòOpinion€of€the€Justicesóó,€304€A.2dÐ À Ð881,€887€(N.H.€1973);€Ô_ÔòòGaskillÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôv.Ô_Ô€Commonwealthóó,€144€S.E.2d€293,€296€(Va.€1965);€òòCity€of€Bellingham€v.€Ô_ÔHiteóóÔ_Ô,€225€P.2dÐ „Ä Ð895,€898„99€(Wash.€1950). öÝ ƒRâ•$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú24Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî©ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡X Xòôî©ÔÔ#†ôî©òXX #ÔòòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Davisóó,€54€S.W.3d€at€256.- ù- ¾Ý ƒRâ•$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî©ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Davisóó,€54€S.W.3d€at€251,€267,€273. šÝ ƒRâ•$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú27Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî©ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Court€reached€this€decision€despite€the€fact€that€the€United€States€Supreme€Court,€construing€the€DueÐ À ÐProcess€Clause€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment,€reached€a€different€conclusion.€€òòNorth€v.€Russellóó,€427€U.S.€328,€96€S.€Ct.Ð „Ä Ð2709€(1976). ¤Ý ƒRâ•$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú29Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî©ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòState€v.€Ô_ÔDursoÔ_Ôóó€overruled€òòÔ_ÔMetznerÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€128€Tenn.€45,€47,€157€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€69,€70€(1913)€that€had€held€that€Tenn.Ð À ÐConst.€art.€VI,€ðð€14€was€a€jurisdictional€limitation.(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ(|G2â•$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€@q»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî©ò»»Ô d(|3‰W$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€@q»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‰W$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€@q»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK Ý ƒRâ•$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú28Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî©ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€is€a€significant€factual€difference€between€the€facts€of€this€case€and€òòState€ex€rel.€Ô_ÔAnglinÔ_Ô€v.€Mitchellóó€whereÐ À Ðthe€Court€pointed€out€that€an€appeal€to€circuit€court€from€an€adjudication€of€delinquency€did€not€suspend€the€juvenileÐ „Ä Ðcourtððs€order€or€operate€to€release€the€juvenile€from€Ô_ÔcustodyÔ_Ô€pending€appeal.€€òòState€ex€rel.€Ô_ÔAnglinÔ_Ô€v.€Mitchellóó,€596€S.W.2dÐ Hˆ  Ðat€784.€€In€this€case,€Ô_ÔperfectingÔ_Ô€a€de€novo€appeal€to€circuit€court€stays€the€order€imposing€the€fine. ÞÝ ƒRâ•$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú23Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî©ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòCity€of€Ô_ÔChattanoogaÔ_Ô€v.€Davisóó,€54€S.W.3d€at€251,€267,€273.Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€@q»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTRXì3Ø'Avery 5162 AddressXà3Ø' Letter3Ø'Avery 5160 AddressÔñññŒñÑTRXì3Ø'ÿ3Ø'LetterTÑÑÀ°ÑÑÀ°ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼@q»»»ÔÑ8€ XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îZ€î»¼@qÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ À Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼@q»îîZ€|#ԈРæ& ÐÓ  ÓFebruary€14,€2002€SessionÐ  L ÐÔ‡X X»¼@qÔÌò òÔ#†¼@q»XX f#ÔTOWN€OF€NOLENSVILLE€v.€RONALD€M.€KINGÔ‡X X»¼@qÔó óÐ  J ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Williamson€CountyÐ  J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€I„99517€€€€€€Russ€Heldman,€JudgeÐ ö 6 ÐÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Í ` AßÐ Î   ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„02572„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„RM„CV€„€Filed€December€19,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ É  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE< ` AßÐ ¡á  Ðó óÌÔ#†¼@q»XX Ñ#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X X»¼@qÔThis€appeal€arises€from€the€enforcement€of€the€Town€of€Nolensvilleððs€ordinance€outlawing€theÐ œÜ  Ðstorage€of€abandoned€or€unusable€automobiles€and€storage€trailers€within€its€city€limits.€€After€theÐ ˆÈ  ÐNolensville€City€Court€entered€a€judgment€against€him€for€$18,600€for€repeated,€flagrant€violationsÐ t´ Ðof€the€ordinance,€a€town€resident€petitioned€the€Circuit€Court€for€Williamson€County€for€a€common„Ð `  Ðlaw€writ€of€certiorari€seeking€to€set€aside€the€city€courtððs€judgment€because€he€had€been€deprived€ofÐ LŒ Ðhis€right€to€a€jury€trial.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€writ€and€set€aside€the€city€courtððs€judgment€basedÐ 8x Ðon€its€conclusion€that€Tenn.€Const.€art.€VI,€ðð€14€guarantees€the€right€to€a€jury€trial€for€fines€in€excessÐ $d Ðof€fifty€dollars.€€After€this€court€vacated€the€trial€courtððs€order,€the€resident€filed€a€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ð P Ð11€application€with€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.€€The€Court€granted€the€application€and€remandedÐ ü< Ðthe€case€to€this€court€with€directions€to€reconsider€the€case€in€light€of€òòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Davisóó,Ð è( Ð54€S.W.3d€248€(Tenn.€2001).€€We€have€determined€that€the€resident€was€not€deprived€of€his€rightÐ Ô Ðto€have€a€jury€assess€his€fine€because€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€27„5„101€(2000)€affords€him€an€absoluteÐ À Ðright€to€a€de€novo€trial€in€circuit€court€where€he€may€obtain€a€jury€trial€if€he€wants€one.€€€Ð ¬ì ÐÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Vacatedó óÐ „Ä ÐÓ˜ ÓÌòòWilliam€C.€Koch,€Jr.,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòWilliam€B.€Cainóó€andÐ \œ ÐòòPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð H ˆ  ÐÌRobert€J.€Notestine,€III,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Town€of€Nolensville.Ð  "`" ÐÌJohn€E.€Herbison,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Ronald€M.€King.Ð ø#8 $ ÐÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ Ð%"& ÐÌà@¬¬)ìàò òI.ó óˆÐ ¨'è#( ÐÌà  àIn€1998,€the€Board€of€Mayor€and€Aldermen€of€the€Town€of€Nolensville€enacted€an€ordinanceÐ €)À%* Ðto€promote€the€health,€safety,€and€welfare€of€the€cityððs€residents.€€The€ordinance,€as€later€amended,Ð l*¬&+ Ðbans€ð ðplac[ing]€or€allow[ing]€any€abandoned€or€unusable€automobiles,€motor€vehicles,€or€storageÐ X+˜', Ðtrailers€to€be€stored€or€lodged€on€real€propertyðð€within€the€city€limits.€€The€ordinance€also€providesÐ D,„(- Ðthat€persons€who€violate€the€ordinance€face€a€penalty€of€up€to€five€hundred€dollars€for€each€offenseÐ 0-p). Ðand€that€each€day€the€violation€continues€constitutes€a€separate€offense.Ð .\*/ý Їà  àOn€April€14,€1999,€Ronald€M.€King€was€cited€for€storing€nine€inoperative€vehicles,€one€semi„Ð À Ðtrailer,€and€several€piles€of€assorted€scrap€and€wooden€pallets€on€his€property.€€On€April€24,€1999,Ð ¬ì Ðthe€Nolensville€City€Court€fined€Mr.€King€$50€for€violating€the€ordinance€but€suspended€the€fine€forÐ ˜Ø Ðthirty€days€to€give€him€an€opportunity€to€clean€up€his€property.€€Mr.€King€paid€no€heed,€and€on€MayÐ „Ä Ð29,€1999,€he€was€cited€again€for€the€same€violation.€€At€a€second€hearing€on€June€26,€1999,€the€cityÐ p° Ðcourt€again€found€Mr.€King€guilty€of€violating€the€ordinance€but€continued€the€proceeding€for€sixtyÐ \œ Ðdays€after€Mr.€King€promised€to€clean€up€his€property.€€The€city€court€specifically€stated€that€the€caseÐ H ˆ Ðagainst€Mr.€King€would€be€dismissed€if€he€cleaned€up€his€property€within€sixty€days€as€he€promised.Ð 4 t ÐÌà  àThe€city€court€conducted€a€third€hearing€on€August€28,€1999.€€After€determining€that€Mr.Ð  L  ÐKing€had€not€fulfilled€his€commitment€to€bring€his€property€into€compliance,€the€city€courtÐ ø 8  Ðdetermined€that€he€had€violated€the€ordinance€for€sixty„two€days.€€The€trial€court€also€determinedÐ ä $  Ðthat€Mr.€King€should€pay€$300€for€each€separate€violation.€€Because€the€ordinance€provided€that€eachÐ Ð  Ðday€of€non„conformance€was€a€separate€violation,€the€city€court€awarded€the€Town€of€NolensvilleÐ ¼ü  Ða€judgment€against€Mr.€King€for€$18,600.Ð ¨è  ÐÌà  àMr.€King€pursued€two,€seemingly€inconsistent,€€judicial€remedies€on€September€8,€1999.€Ð €À ÐFirst,€he€perfected€a€de€novo€appeal€from€the€city€courtððs€judgment€in€the€Circuit€Court€forÐ l¬ ÐWilliamson€County€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€27„5„101€(2000).€€Four€minutes€later,€Mr.€KingÐ X˜ Ðfiled€a€petition€for€common„law€writ€of€certiorari€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Williamson€County,Ð D„ Ðrequesting€the€reversal€of€the€city€courtððs€$18,600€judgment€because€he€had€been€denied€hisÐ 0p Ðconstitutional€right€to€have€a€jury€assess€his€monetary€penalty€in€the€city€court.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р\ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€conducted€a€hearing€on€Mr.€Kingððs€certiorari€petition€on€October€11,€1999.€Ð ô4 ÐLater,€on€November€12,€1999,€the€court€filed€a€memorandum€opinion€and€order€granting€Mr.€KingððsÐ à  Ðpetition,€vacating€the€city€courtððs€$18,600€judgment,€and€remanding€the€case€to€the€city€court€for€theÐ Ì  Ðentry€of€a€judgment€not€to€exceed€$50.€€The€trial€court€based€the€decision€on€its€conclusions€that€Mr.Ð ¸ø ÐKing€was€entitled€to€a€jury€trial€in€proceedings€where€the€penalty€could€exceed€$50€and€that€Mr.€KingÐ ¤ä Ðhad€not€waived€his€right€to€a€jury€trial€in€the€city€court€proceedings.€€The€trial€court€also€dismissedÐ Ð ÐMr.€Kingððs€de€novo€appeal€without€prejudice€at€the€request€of€Mr.€Kingððs€counsel.Ð |¼ ÐÌà  àThe€Town€of€Nolensville€appealed€to€this€court.€€On€September€14,€2000,€we€filed€an€opinionÐ T ” Ðvacating€the€trial€courtððs€order€granting€the€petition€for€writ€of€certiorari.€€Consistent€with€theÐ @!€  Ðprecedent€established€in€òòBarrett€v.€Metropolitan€Govððtóó,€No.€M1999„01130„COA„R3„CV,€2000€WLÐ ,"l! Ð798657,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€June€22,€2000),׃Ü×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€we€held€that€the€city€court€proceedings€did€not€violateÐ #X" ÐTenn.€Const.€art.€VI,€ðð€14€because€the€monetary€assessment€for€violating€the€ordinance€was€not€aÐ $D # Ðð ðfine.ðð€€We€also€held€that€the€proceeding€did€not€defeat€or€impair€Mr.€Kingððs€right€to€a€jury€trialÐ ð$0!$ Ðbecause€he€could€easily€have€obtained€a€jury€trial€by€pursuing€the€de€novo€appeal€he€had€alreadyÐ Ü%"% Ðperfected€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€27„5„101.€€òòTown€of€Nolensville€v.€Kingóó,€No.Ð È&#& ÐM1999„02512„COA„R3„CV,€2000€WL€1291984,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Sept.€14,€2000),€òòperm.€app.Ð À Ðgranted€óó(Tenn.€Oct.€22,€2001).Ð ¬ì ÐÌà  àMr.€King€filed€a€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€with€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€fromÐ „Ä Ðour€opinion.€€The€Court€granted€the€application€and,€on€October€22,€2001,€remanded€the€case€withÐ p° Ðdirections€to€reconsider€our€September€14,€2000€opinion€in€light€of€òòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Davisóó,Ð \œ Ð54€S.W.3d€248€(Tenn.€2001).€€Thereafter,€we€directed€the€parties€to€submit€supplemental€briefs€andÐ H ˆ Ðheard€oral€argument€regarding€the€application€of€the€òòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Davis€óódecision€to€thisÐ 4 t Ðcase.Ð  ` ÐÌà@……)ìàò òII.ó óˆÐ ø 8  ÐÌà  àProceedings€to€enforce€municipal€ordinances€have€long€been€considered€to€be€civil€actionsÐ Ð  Ðð ðin€the€nature€of€actions€for€debt.ðð€€òòBriggs€v.€City€of€Union€Cityóó,€531€S.W.2d€106,€107€(Tenn.€1975);Ð ¼ü  ÐòòMetropolitan€Govððt€v.€Allenóó,€529€S.W.2d€699,€707€(Tenn.€1975);€òòOððDell€v.€City€of€Knoxvilleóó,€214Ð ¨è  ÐTenn.€237,€239,€379€S.W.2d€756,€758€(1964).€€Accordingly,€for€at€least€the€past€four€decades,€theÐ ”Ô  Ðcourts€held€that€the€Fifty€Dollar€Fines€Clause€in€the€Tennessee€Constitution€did€not€apply€to€theseÐ €À Ðproceedings€because€a€monetary€assessment€for€violating€a€municipal€ordinance€was€not€a€ð ðfineððÐ l¬ Ðunder€Tenn.€Const.€art.€VI,€ðð€14.€€Judge,€later€Justice,€Chester€Chattin€explained€that€there€was€aÐ X˜ Ðð ðmarked€distinction€in€the€meaning€of€the€word€ððpenaltyðð€.€.€.€and€the€word€ððfineðððð€and€that€ð ðwhileÐ D„ Ða€fine€is€always€a€penalty,€a€penalty€is€not€always€a€fine.ðð€€òòOððDell€v.€City€of€Knoxvilleóó,€54€Tenn.€App.Ð 0p Ð59,€63,€388€S.W.2d€150,€152€(1964).€Ð \ ÐÌà  àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€now€repudiated€this€courtððs€rationale€in€òòOððDell€v.€City€ofÐ ô4 ÐKnoxville€óóthat€courts€do€not€impose€punitive€sanctions€in€civil€proceedings.€€Noting€that€civilÐ à  Ðproceedings€may€impose€sanctions€that€are€so€punitive€in€form€or€effect€as€to€trigger€constitutionalÐ Ì  Ðprotections,€the€Court€held€that€ð ðproceedings€involving€the€violation€of€a€municipal€ordinance€mayÐ ¸ø Ðbe€subject€to€the€limitations€of€Article€VI,€section€14€when€either€the€intended€purpose€or€the€actualÐ ¤ä Ðpurpose€or€effect€of€the€monetary€assessment€is€to€serve€as€a€punitive€measure.ðð€€òòCity€of€ChattanoogaÐ Ð Ðv.€Davisóó,€54€S.W.3d€at€256.€€To€aid€in€the€application€of€its€decision,€the€Court€devised€an€elaborateÐ |¼ Ðanalysis€for€determining€whether€a€particular€ordinance€is€remedial€or€punitive€and€whether€theÐ h¨ Ðactual€purpose€or€effect€of€a€particular€monetary€assessment€for€violating€an€ordinance€is€punitive.Ð T ” ÐÌà  àThe€first€step€of€the€Courtððs€analysis€is€to€determine€whether€the€intended€purpose€of€theÐ ,"l! Ðmonetary€assessment€is€primarily€punitive€or€remedial.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€inquiry€begins€with€the€text€of€theÐ #X" Ðordinance€because€the€purpose€and€intent€of€the€legislative€body€enacting€the€ordinance€is€reflectedÐ $D # Ðâ âin€the€language€of€the€ordinance€itself.׃T×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Express€statements€of€intent€are€ð ðespecially€relevantðð€in€thisÐ ð$0!$ Ðregard.׃)×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€court€must€also€examine€the€substance€of€the€ordinance€rather€than€its€form.׃T×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€If,€basedÐ À Ðâ âon€this€textual€examination,€the€court€determines€that€the€intended€purpose€of€the€ordinance€isÐ ¬ì Ðprimarily€punitive,€the€Fifty€Dollar€Fines€Clause€in€Tenn.€Const.€art.€VI,€ðð€14€applies.€€If€the€courtÐ ˜Ø Ðdetermines€that€the€ordinance€is€primarily€remedial,€it€must€proceed€to€the€second€step€of€theÐ „Ä Ðanalysis.Ð p° ÐÌà  àAt€the€second€step,€if€the€court€determines€that€the€primary€purpose€of€an€ordinance€isÐ H ˆ Ðremedial,€it€must€then€determine€whether€the€monetary€assessment€actually€imposed€for€violatingÐ 4 t Ðthe€ordinance€is€remedial€in€its€actual€purpose€or€effect.׃à×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€inquiry€requires€the€court€to€examineÐ  ` Ðthe€actual€purpose€and€effect€of€the€monetary€assessment€in€the€context€of€the€entire€ð ðstatutoryÐ  L  Ðschemeðð€and€to€determine€ð ðwhether€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€demonstrates€that€the€statutoryÐ ø 8  Ðscheme€truly€envisions€the€pecuniary€sanction€as€serving€to€remedy€or€to€correct€a€violation.ðð׃l×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€thisÐ ä $  Ðregard,€the€Court€observed€that€monetary€assessments€serve€remedial€purposes€in€only€limitedÐ Ð  Ðcircumstances׃ ø×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€that€a€monetary€assessment€will€be€considered€punitive€if€its€only€remedialÐ ¼ü  Ðpurpose€is€general€deterrence.׃!„×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ¨è  ÐÌà  àThus,€a€monetary€assessment€that€is€ð ðfixedðð€and€ð ðdeterminant€[sic]ðð׃# ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€will€generally€triggerÐ €À Ðthe€application€of€the€Fifty€Dollar€Fines€Clause€in€Tenn.€Const.€art.€VI,€ðð€14.€€However,€a€monetaryÐ l¬ Ðassessment€containing€a€ð ðpurge€provisionðð€allowing€the€offender€an€opportunity€to€reduce€or€avoidÐ X˜ Ðthe€fine€through€compliance€will€not€be€considered€to€be€primarily€punitive.׃$œ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€According€to€theÐ D„ ÐCourt,€a€purge€provision€may€take€one€of€two€forms.€€First,€it€may€take€the€form€of€a€fixed€andÐ 0p Ðdeterminate€fine€that€is€then€ð ðsuspended€pending€future€compliance.ðð׃%( ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Second,€it€may€take€the€formÐ \ Ðof€a€fine€that€is€ð ðimposed€òòper€diemóó,€or€for€each€day€of€noncompliance€with€an€order€or€directive.ðð׃&´×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð H ÐÌà  àThe€effect€of€the€òòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Davis€óódecision€was€immediate€and€far„reaching.€Ð à  ÐBecause€most€local€governments€enforced€their€local€ordinances€in€either€municipal€or€generalÐ Ì  Ðâ âsessions€courts,€enforcement€proceedings€in€all€but€the€most€trivial€matters€were€affected€becauseÐ ¸ø Ðthese€courts€could€not€empanel€juries.׃1×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Therefore,€the€Fifty€Dollar€Fines€Clause€in€Tenn.€Const.€art.Ð À Ðâ âVI,€ðð€14€prevented€them€from€imposing€fines€in€excess€of€fifty€dollars€for€each€offense€unless€theÐ ¬ì Ðdefendant€waived€his€or€her€right€to€have€the€fine€determined€by€a€jury.€€Despite€the€Courtððs€cautionÐ ˜Ø Ðthat€constitutional€protections€should€not€be€converted€ð ðinto€obstacles€that€prevent€the€enactment€ofÐ „Ä Ðhonestly„motivated€remedial€legislation,ðð׃T×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€one€commentator€predicted€that€the€òòCity€of€ChattanoogaÐ p° Ðv.€Davis€óódecision€would€ð ðbecome€an€effective€weapon€in€the€arsenals€of€clever€defense€attorneys€forÐ \œ Ðattacking€the€validity€of€fines€imposed€upon€their€clients€for€violating€city€or€county€ordinances€andÐ H ˆ Ðcodes.ðð€€Doug€Hamill,€Comment,€òòThe€Fifty€Dollar€Fines€Clause€Re„Emerges€After€Thirty„Five€YearsÐ 4 t Ðof€Slumberóó,€70€Tenn.€L.€Rev.€887,€897€(2003).Ð  ` ÐÌà  à€€The€Tennessee€General€Assembly,€recognizing€that€the€Fifty€Dollar€Fines€Clause€hadÐ ø 8  Ðbecome€outmoded,€had€started€the€process€to€amend€Tenn.€Const.€art.€VI,€ðð€14€in€2000.€€It€proposedÐ ä $  Ðto€replace€the€fifty€dollar€cap€with€one€legislatively€set.€€While€òòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Davis€óówendedÐ Ð  Ðits€way€though€the€appellate€courts,€both€the€101st€and€102nd€General€Assemblies€approved€theÐ ¼ü  Ðproposed€amendment,׃'à×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€it€was€presented€to€the€voters€on€November€5,€2002.€€The€amendmentÐ ¨è  Ðfell€124,150€votes€short€of€ratification.׃*0×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Even€though€53%€of€the€persons€who€voted€on€theÐ ”Ô  Ðamendment€approved€it,€the€amendment€was€not€ratified€because€ratification€required€a€majority€ofÐ €À Ðthe€number€of€votes€cast€in€the€governorððs€race.׃(€×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú19Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð l¬ ÐÌà@^^(ìàò òIII.ó óˆÐ D„ ÐÌà  àWe€now€turn€to€the€text€of€Nolensvilleððs€amended€ordinance€to€determine€whether€theÐ \ Ðordinance€is€primarily€punitive€or€remedial.€€This€inquiry€bears€little€fruit€because,€unlike€theÐ H ÐChattanooga€and€Nashville€ordinances€construed€in€òòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Davisóó,€this€ordinanceÐ ô4 Ðcontains€no€language€clearly€pointing€in€one€direction€or€the€other.€€It€does€not€use€terms€likeÐ à  Ðð ðpunish,ðð€ð ðconviction,ðð€misdemeanor,ðð€or€ð ðunlawfulðð€that€prompted€the€Court€to€conclude€that€theÐ Ì  ÐChattanooga€ordinance€was€primarily€punitive.€€Likewise,€the€record€contains€no€other€legislativeÐ ¸ø Ðhistory€that€might€shed€additional€light€on€the€ordinanceððs€purpose.Ð ¤ä Ðâ âÐ Ð Ðà  àWhen€Nolensvilleððs€Board€of€Mayor€and€Aldermen€enacted€this€ordinance,€it€was€exercisingÐ À Ðits€authority€to€promote€the€health,€safety,€and€welfare€of€the€townððs€residents.׃"×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú20Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€addition€toÐ ¬ì Ðdefining€and€describing€the€undesirable€conduct,€the€ordinance€provided€thatÐ ˜Ø Ðâ âÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[v]iolations€of€this€chapter€shall€.€.€.€subject€the€offender€to€a€penaltyÐ p° Ðof€up€to€five€hundred€dollars€($500.00)€for€each€offense.€€Each€day€aÐ \œ Ðviolation€is€allowed€to€continue€shall€constitute€a€separate€offense.ÐH ˆ` x` x ÐÌWe€cannot€say€that€the€language€of€this€ordinance,€on€its€face,€requires€us€to€conclude€that€theÐ  ` Ðordinance€is€primarily€punitive.€€It€does€not€criminalize€violations,€and€it€contains€no€provision€forÐ  L  Ðincarceration.€€The€terms€ð ðviolation,ðð€ð ðoffender,ðð€and€ð ðoffenseðð€are€far€more€neutral€than€the€termsÐ ø 8  Ðð ðpunish,ðð€ð ðconviction,ðð€ð ðunlawful,ðð€and€ð ðmisdemeanorðð€found€in€Chattanoogaððs€ordinance.€€As€bestÐ ä $  Ðwe€can€tell€from€this€record,€the€primary€purpose€of€Nolensvilleððs€ordinance€is€to€preserve€aÐ Ð  Ðwholesome,€healthful,€and€pleasant€living€environment€for€its€residents.€€Accordingly,€mindful€ofÐ ¼ü  Ðthe€Courtððs€admonition€against€erecting€obstacles€that€prevent€the€enactment€and€enforcement€ofÐ ¨è  Ðhonestly€motivated€remedial€measures,€we€find€that€the€purpose€of€Nolensvilleððs€ordinance€at€issueÐ ”Ô  Ðin€this€case€is€not€primarily€punitive.Ð €À ÐÌà  àThe€òòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Davis€óótest€requires€us€to€press€onward€to€consider€whether€theÐ X˜ Ðfine€imposed€on€Mr.€King€was€remedial€in€purpose€or€effect.€€Because€it€is€a€ð ðfixedðð€andÐ D„ Ðð ðdeterminateðð€monetary€assessment€that€does€not€have€one€of€the€remedial€purposes€recognized€byÐ 0p Ðthe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court,׃ì×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú21Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€we€have€no€choice€other€than€to€conclude€that€the€$18,600€monetaryÐ \ Ðassessmentððs€actual€purpose€and€effect€is€punitive€unless€it€contains€a€purge€provision.€€There€is€noÐ H Ðquestion€that€both€the€April€24,€1999€and€the€June€26,€1999€orders€would€not€have€been€consideredÐ ô4 Ðpunitive€under€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Courtððs€test€because€the€city€court€suspended€the€monetaryÐ à  Ðassessments€ð ðpending€future€compliance.ðð€€However,€the€third€order€issued€on€August€28,€1999€wasÐ Ì  Ðnot€suspended€to€give€Mr.€King€a€chance€to€comply.€€It€was€simply€a€judgment€against€him€forÐ ¸ø Ð$18,600€ð!ð€no€more,€no€less.׃+x×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú22Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ¤ä ÐÌà  àLikewise,€the€August€28,€1999€order€does€not€impose€a€ð ðper€diemðð€penalty€on€Mr.€King.€Ð |¼ ÐWhile€the€total€amount€of€the€monetary€assessment€was€based€on€the€number€of€days€ofÐ h¨ Ðnoncompliance€by€Mr.€King,€its€total€amount€was€fixed,€and€it€did€not€provide€for€increasingÐ T ” Ðmonetary€assessment€for€each€day€Mr.€King€remained€in€non„compliance.Ð @!€  ÐÐ ,"l! Ðà  àWe€have€no€doubt€that€the€municipal€court€in€this€case€was€primarily€trying€to€induce€Mr.Ð À ÐKing€to€comply€with€the€ordinance€by€cleaning€up€his€property.€€However,€because€of€the€strict,Ð ¬ì Ðunbending€requirements€inòò€City€of€Chattanooga€v.€Davisóó,€we€have€no€alternative€other€than€toÐ ˜Ø Ðconclude€that€the€actual€purpose€and€effect€of€the€August€28,€1999€order€imposing€a€$18,600Ð „Ä Ðmonetary€assessment€on€Mr.€King€was€primarily€intended€to€punish€him€for€violating€NolensvilleððsÐ p° Ðordinance€proscribing€storing€abandoned€vehicles€and€trailers€on€his€property.Ð \œ ÐÌà@dd)ìàò òIV.ó óˆÐ 4 t ÐÌà  àIf€the€municipal€court€hearing€were€the€only€trial€available€to€Mr.€King,€our€inquiry€wouldÐ  L  Ðend€at€this€point.€€Because€Mr.€King€could€not€have€obtained€a€jury€trial€in€municipal€court,׃»×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú23Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€anyÐ ø 8  Ðfine€imposed€in€the€municipal€court€in€excess€of€fifty€dollars€for€each€offense€would€violate€Tenn.Ð ä $  ÐConst.€art.€VI,€ðð€14.€€However,€the€trial€in€municipal€court€was€not€the€only€trial€available€to€Mr.Ð Ð  ÐKing.€€It€was€only€the€first€trial€in€a€two„tier€proceeding.€€If€Mr.€King€was€dissatisfied€with€the€resultsÐ ¼ü  Ðof€the€hearing€in€municipal€court,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€27„5„101€gave€him€an€absolute€right€to€a€deÐ ¨è  Ðnovo€appeal€to€circuit€court€where€he€is€entitled€to€have€a€jury€to€determine€whether€he€violated€theÐ ”Ô  Ðordinance€and€to€assess€the€amount€of€his€monetary€penalty.€€Thus,€the€remaining€question€to€beÐ €À Ðanswered€is€whether€affording€Mr.€King€a€jury€trial€as€of€right€on€the€de€novo€appeal€to€circuit€courtÐ l¬ Ðsatisfies€Tenn.€Const.€art.€VI,€ðð€14.€Ð X˜ ÐÌà  àIn€our€first€decision€in€this€case,€we€held€that€even€if€Tenn.€Const.€art.€VI,€ðð€14€applied€toÐ 0p Ðthese€proceedings,€Mr.€Kingððs€right€to€have€a€jury€determine€his€monetary€assessment€was€notÐ \ Ðimpaired€or€denied€because€he€could€demand€a€jury€as€of€right€on€a€de€novo€appeal€to€the€circuitÐ H Ðcourt€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€27„5„101.€€òòTown€of€Nolensville€v.€Kingóó,€2000€WL€1291984,€atÐ ô4 Ð*2.€€We€based€our€decision€on€our€earlier€decision€in€òòBarrett€v.€Metropolitan€Govððtóó,€in€which€we€hadÐ à  Ðheld€that€the€availability€of€a€jury€trial€in€circuit€court€satisfied€the€requirements€of€Tenn.€Const.€art.Ð Ì  ÐVI,€ðð€14.€€òòBarrett€v.€Metropolitan€Govððtóó,€2000€WL€798657,€at€*2.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtððsÐ ¸ø Ðreversal€of€our€decision€in€òòBarrett€v.€Metropolitan€Govððt€óórested€exclusively€on€its€conclusion€that€weÐ ¤ä Ðerred€by€holding€that€Tenn.€Const.€art.€VI,€ðð€14€did€not€apply€because€the€monetary€assessment€wasÐ Ð Ðnot€a€ð ðfine.ðð€€Ð |¼ ÐÌà  àOnce€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€addressed€an€issue,€its€decision€regarding€that€issueÐ T ” Ðis€binding€on€the€lower€courts.€€òòState€v.€Irickóó,€906€S.W.2d€440,€443€(Tenn.€1995);€òòPayne€v.€Johnsonóó,Ð @!€  Ð2€Tenn.€Cas.€(Shannon)€542,€543€(1877).€€Thus,€the€Courtððs€decisions€construing€constitutionalÐ ,"l! Ðquestions€must€be€followed€in€the€absence€of€cogent€reasons€to€the€contrary.€€òòHumphries€v.Ð #X" ÐManhattan€Sav.€Bank€&€Trust€Co.óó,€174€Tenn.€17,€25,€122€S.W.2d€446,€449€(1938);òò€Schultzðð€EstateÐ $D # Ðv.€Munfordóó,€650€S.W.2d€37,€39€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1982).€€The€lower€courts€must€also€follow€theÐ ð$0!$ ÐCourtððs€dictum,€particularly€when€the€Court€is€seeking€to€give€guidance€to€the€bench€and€bar.€€òòHolderÐ Ü%"% Ðv.€Tennessee€Jud.€Selection€Commððnóó,€937€S.W.2d€877,€882€(Tenn.€1996).Ð È&#& Ðâ âÐ ´'ô#' Ðà  àWhile€the€Court€alluded€to€our€alternative€holding€in€òòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Davisóó,׃-×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú24Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€it€didÐ À Ðâ ânot€address€the€issue€head€on.€€We€have€examined€the€briefs€and€record€filed€with€the€Court€toÐ ¬ì Ðascertain€the€reasons€for€the€Courtððs€silence€and€have€determined€that€the€Court€did€not€address€theÐ ˜Ø Ðquestion€because€the€parties€did€not€raise€it.€€Appellate€courts,€including€the€Tennessee€SupremeÐ „Ä ÐCourt,€do€not,€as€a€general€matter,€address€issues€that€have€not€been€presented€to€them.€€Tenn.€R.Ð p° ÐApp.€P.€13(b).€€It€is,€therefore,€understandable€that€the€Court€chose€to€focus€its€attention€only€on€theÐ \œ Ðissues€that€were€actually€briefed€and€argued.€Ð H ˆ ÐÌà  àConstitutional€rights€are€not€defined€by€mere€inferences€in€judicial€opinions€that€did€notÐ  ` Ðaddress€the€constitutional€question€at€issue.€€òòTexas€v.€Cobbóó,€532€U.S.€162,€169,121€S.€Ct.€1335,€1341Ð  L  Ð(2001).€€Thus,€constitutional€questions€lurking€in€a€record€that€have€not€been€brought€to€the€CourtððsÐ ø 8  Ðattention€or€ruled€upon€by€the€Court€should€not€be€considered€as€having€been€decided.€€òòKVOS,€Inc.Ð ä $  Ðv.€Associated€Pressóó,€299€U.S.€269,€279,€57€S.€Ct.€197,€201€(1936€);€òòState€ex€rel.€Harbin€v.€Dunnóó,€39Ð Ð  ÐTenn.€App.€190,€210,€282€S.W.2d€203,€212€(1943).€€Because€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€did€notÐ ¼ü  Ðdecide€in€òòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Davis€óówhether€providing€a€violator€of€a€non„penal€municipalÐ ¨è  Ðordinance€with€a€jury€trial€on€a€de€novo€appeal€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€27„5„101€satisfies€theÐ ”Ô  ÐFifty€Dollar€Fines€Clause,€we€have€determined€that€the€question€remains€open.Ð €À ÐÌà@‹‹)ìàò òV.ó óˆÐ X˜ ÐÌà  àIn€addition€to€its€affinity€with€the€Excessive€Fines€Clause€in€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€16,׃T×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú25Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€theÐ 0p ÐFifty€Dollar€Fines€Clause€is€closely€related€to€the€right€to€trial€by€jury€protected€by€Tenn.€Const.€art.Ð \ ÐI,€ðððð€6€&€9.€€Both€constitutional€safeguards€serve€a€common€purpose€ð!ð€to€prevent€the€possibility€ofÐ H Ðoppression€by€the€government€in€the€form€of€overzealous€prosecutors€or€judges.€€òòDuncan€v.Ð ô4 ÐLouisianaóó,€391€U.S.€145,€155„56,€88€S.€Ct.€1444,€1451€(1968);€òòUpchurch€v.€Stateóó,€153€Tenn.€198,Ð à  Ð205,€281€S.W.€462,€464€(1926);€òòThe€Federalistóó€No.€83,€at€543„44€(Alexander€Hamilton)Ð Ì  Ð(Bicentennial€ed.€1976);€Akbil€R.€Amar,€òòThe€Bill€of€Rights€as€a€Constitutionóó,€100€Yale€L.J.€1131,Ð ¸ø Ð1182„83€(1991).€€Thus,€the€precedents€regarding€the€right€to€a€jury€trial€provide€us€helpful€guidanceÐ ¤ä Ðfor€the€application€of€Tenn.€Const.€art.€VI,€ðð€14.Ð Ð ÐÌà  àTwo„tiered€proceedings€for€adjudicating€simple€matters€have€been€commonplace€since€theÐ h¨ Ðearliest€years€of€our€Nation€and€State.€€The€first€tier€proceeding€involves€a€trial€before€a€localÐ T ” Ðmagistrate,€justice€of€the€peace,€or€judge.€€Generally,€it€does€not€provide€all€of€the€procedures€andÐ @!€  Ðsafeguards€that€are€commonplace€in€state€courts€of€record.€€There€is€no€formal€discovery€similar€toÐ ,"l! Ðthat€available€in€circuit€court;€there€is€no€motion€practice;€the€proceedings€are€generally€notÐ #X" Ðtranscribed;€and€there€are€no€juries.€Ð $D # ÐÌà  àThe€second€tier€proceeding€involves€a€de€novo€appeal€to€a€court€of€record.€€In€TennesseeððsÐ Ü%"% Ðcase,€the€de€novo€appeal€is€to€the€circuit€court.€€A€de€novo€appeal€wipes€the€slate€clean.€€The€caseÐ È&#& Ðbegins€anew,€exactly€as€if€it€had€been€brought€in€the€court€of€record€in€the€first€place.€€Second€tierÐ ´'ô#' Ðproceedings€must€be€conducted€in€conformance€with€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€as€wellÐ  (à$( Ðas€the€other€statutory€and€constitutional€procedures€and€safeguards€normally€associated€with€stateÐ À Ðcourts€of€record.Ð ¬ì ЀÌà  àTwo„tiered€proceedings€benefit€the€parties€and€conserve€judicial€resources.€€In€these€days€ofÐ „Ä Ðincreased€burdens€on€state€judges€and€the€rising€litigation€costs€and€delays€in€state€courts,€the€firstÐ p° Ðtier€trial€provides€a€speedier€and€less€costly€adjudication€of€simple€disputes€that€would€not€beÐ \œ Ðpossible€in€state€courts€of€record.€€òòSee€Colten€v.€Kentuckyóó,€407€U.S.€104,€114,€92€S.€Ct.€1953,€1959Ð H ˆ Ð(1972).Ð 4 t Ѐ€Ð  ` Ðà  àExpediency€and€convenience,€however,€do€not€provide€sound€reasons€for€depriving€orÐ  L  Ðimpairing€a€partyððs€constitutional€rights.€€òòCaudill€v.€Mrs.€Grissomððs€Salads,€Inc.óó,€541€S.W.2d€101,Ð ø 8  Ð106€(Tenn.€1976).€€The€constitutionality€of€two„tier€proceedings€has,€accordingly,€been€challengedÐ ä $  Ðon€the€ground€that€litigants€who€do€not€receive€all€their€constitutional€rights€during€the€first€tier€trialÐ Ð  Ðshould€not€be€required€to€wait€until€the€second€tier€trial€to€obtain€the€benefits€of€these€rights.€€TheseÐ ¼ü  Ðchallenges€have€generally€been€unsuccessful.€€The€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€two„Ð ¨è  Ðtier€proceedings€do€not€violate€the€Due€Process€Clause€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€or€the€DoubleÐ ”Ô  ÐJeopardy€Clause€of€the€Fifth€Amendment,€even€though€a€greater€penalty€could€be€imposed€in€the€trialÐ €À Ðde€novo€than€might€have€been€imposed€at€the€first€tier€proceeding.€€òòColten€v.€Kentuckyóó,€407€U.S.€atÐ l¬ Ð119„120,€92€S.€Ct.€at€1961„62.Ð X˜ ÐÌà  àThe€courts€have€also€held€consistently€that€two„tier€proceedings€that€do€not€offer€a€jury€trialÐ 0p Ðat€the€first€tier€do€not€violate€or€impermissibly€burden€a€litigantððs€right€to€a€trial€by€jury,€as€long€asÐ \ Ðthe€litigant€has€an€absolute€right€to€a€jury€during€the€second€tier€proceeding.òò€€Ludwig€v.Ð H ÐMassachusettsóó,€427€U.S.€618,€626,€96€S.€Ct.€2781,€2786€(1976).׃,×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú26Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÐ ô4 Ðhas€likewise€held€on€three€occasions€that€a€two„tier€proceeding€does€not€impair€a€litigantððs€right€toÐ à  Ða€jury€trial€protected€by€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€6,€€as€long€as€the€litigant€is€afforded€a€right€to€a€juryÐ Ì  Ðtrial€during€the€second€tier€proceeding.€€òòPryor€v.€Haysóó,€17€Tenn.€(9€Yer.)€416,€417„18€(1836);Ð ¸ø ÐòòMorford€v.€Barnesóó,€16€Tenn.€(8€Yer.)€444,€446€(1835);€òòThompson€v.€Gibsonóó,€2€Tenn.€(2€Overt.)€235,Ð ¤ä Ð235„36€(1814).€€Ð Ð ÐÌà  àIn€addition,€both€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€and€this€court€have,€at€least€implicitly,€foundÐ h¨ Ðno€fault€with€the€two„tier€juvenile€delinquency€proceedings.€€Juveniles€facing€delinquency€chargesÐ T ” Ðthat€would€otherwise€be€considered€felonies€have€a€right€to€a€jury€trial.€€òòState€v.€Stricklandóó,€532Ð @!€  ÐS.W.2d€912,€921€(Tenn.€1975)€(approving€this€courtððs€òòArwood€v.€State€óódecision);€òòArwood€v.€Stateóó,Ð ,"l! Ð62€Tenn.€App.€453,€457„58,€463€S.W.2d€943,€946€(1970).€€However,€these€juveniles€need€not€beÐ #X" Ðgiven€a€jury€trial€in€juvenile€court,€as€long€as€they€have€a€right€to€a€jury€trial€on€de€novo€appeal€toÐ $D # Ðcircuit€court.€€òòSee€State€v.€Johnsonóó,€574€S.W.2d€739,€741€(Tenn.€1978)€(holding€that€a€juvenile€whoÐ ð$0!$ Ðhad€not€waived€his€or€her€right€to€a€jury€trial€was€entitled€to€a€jury€trial€on€the€de€novo€appeal€toÐ Ü%"% Ðcircuit€court).€€Ð È&#& Ðâ âÐ ´'ô#' Ðà  àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€invalidated€two„tier€proceedings€only€when€they€involvedÐ À Ðâ âpossible€confinement€or€loss€of€liberty.€€In€1980,€a€deeply€divided€Court€held€that€permitting€non„Ð ¬ì Ðlawyer€juvenile€court€judges€to€preside€over€delinquency€proceedings€violated€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,Ð ˜Ø Ððð€8€if€the€proceedings€could€result€in€confinement€or€the€loss€of€liberty,€even€though€the€juvenile€hadÐ „Ä Ðthe€right€to€a€de€novo€appeal€and€a€trial€in€circuit€court€before€a€judge€who€was€a€lawyer.€€òòState€exÐ p° Ðrel€Anglin€v.€Mitchellóó,€596€S.W.2d€779,€791,€796€(Tenn.€1980).׃4×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú27Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Eighteen€years€later,€a€dividedÐ \œ ÐCourt€reached€the€same€conclusion€with€regard€to€adults€accused€of€a€criminal€offense€punishableÐ H ˆ Ðby€incarceration.€€The€Court€held€that€these€persons€are€ð ðentitled€to€a€determination€of€his€[or€her]Ð 4 t Ðstatus€with€the€full€panoply€of€rights€designed€to€achieve€justice€at€the€earliest€hearing€on€the€merits.ðð€Ð  ` ÐòòCity€of€White€House€v.€Whitleyóó,€979€S.W.2d€262,€268€(Tenn.€1998).€€Ð  L  ÐÌà  àAs€we€construe€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Courtððs€decisions,€a€litigant€is€entitled€to€the€ð ðfullÐ ä $  Ðpanoply€of€[his€or€her]€rights€.€.€.€at€the€earliest€hearing€on€the€meritsðð€only€when€he€or€she€facesÐ Ð  Ðincarceration€or€loss€of€liberty.€€If€confinement€is€not€involved,€providing€a€litigant€with€the€fullÐ ¼ü  Ðpanoply€of€his€or€her€constitutional€rights€at€the€second€tier€of€a€two„tier€proceeding€may€beÐ ¨è  Ðconstitutionally€permissible€as€long€as€two€conditions€are€met.€€First,€requiring€the€litigant€to€waitÐ ”Ô  Ðuntil€the€second€tier€trial€must€not€undermine€the€constitutional€safeguardððs€essential€purpose.€Ð €À ÐSecond,€the€litigant€must€not€be€materially€prejudiced€by€not€being€afforded€the€full€panoply€of€hisÐ l¬ Ðor€her€rights€at€the€first€tier€trial.€€Ð X˜ ÐÌà@dd)ìàò òVI.ó óˆÐ 0p ÐÌà  àThis€case€does€not€involve€confinement€because€Nolensvilleððs€remedial€ordinance€does€notÐ H Ðcriminalize€conduct.€€While€it€envisions€the€imposition€of€monetary€assessments€for€violations€ofÐ ô4 Ðthe€ordinance,€it€does€not€provide€for€incarceration.€€Accordingly,€the€only€remaining€questions€areÐ à  Ðwhether€providing€Mr.€King€with€a€right€to€have€a€jury€determine€his€monetary€assessment€at€theÐ Ì  Ðsecond€tier€trial€will€frustrate€the€purpose€of€the€Fifty€Dollar€Fines€Clause€and€whether€Mr.€King€willÐ ¸ø Ðbe€materially€prejudiced€by€being€required€to€wait€until€the€second€tier€trial€to€have€a€jury€determineÐ ¤ä Ðwhether€he€has€violated€the€ordinance€and,€if€he€has,€the€amount€of€his€fine.€€We€have€determinedÐ Ð Ðthat€the€answer€to€both€questions€is€no.Ð |¼ ÐÌà  àWith€regard€to€the€first€question,€affording€Mr.€King€the€opportunity€for€a€jury€trial€on€hisÐ T ” Ðde€novo€appeal€to€circuit€court€is€entirely€consistent€with€the€purpose€of€Tenn.€Const.€art.€VI,€ðð€14.€Ð @!€  ÐThe€sole€purpose€of€the€Fifty€Dollar€Fines€Clause€is€to€insulate€litigants€from€the€imposition€ofÐ ,"l! Ðexcessive€fines€by€judges.€€This€purpose€is€served€in€a€two„tier€proceeding€because€persons€like€Mr.Ð #X" ÐKing€who€violate€remedial€ordinances€will€not€be€required€to€pay€any€monetary€assessment€until€aÐ $D # Ðjury€determines€that€they€violated€the€ordinance€and€the€amount€of€their€monetary€assessment.׃yÜ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú28Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ð$0!$ Їà  àPersons€who€do€not€pursue€a€de€novo€appeal€to€circuit€court€would€be€required€to€pay€theÐ À Ðmonetary€assessment€imposed€in€the€municipal€court€or€general€sessions€court.€€Parties€may€waiveÐ ¬ì Ðtheir€rights€under€Tenn.€Const.€art.€VI,€ðð€14.€€òòState€v.€Dursoóó,€645€S.W.2d€753,€759€(Tenn.€1983).׃5×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú29Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р˜Ø ÐAccordingly,€in€civil€proceedings€such€as€this€one€that€do€not€involve€a€punitive€ordinance,€a€partyÐ „Ä Ðwho€is€aware€of€its€right€to€a€de€novo€appeal€but€who€fails€to€pursue€one€should€be€deemed€to€haveÐ p° Ðwaived€its€rights€under€the€Fifty€Dollar€Fines€Clause.€Ð \œ ÐÌà  àWith€regard€to€the€second€question,€the€two„tier€proceeding€available€to€Mr.€King€does€notÐ 4 t Ðmaterially€prejudice€his€substantive€or€procedural€rights.€€At€his€option,€he€may€either€vigorouslyÐ  ` Ðoppose€or€not€contest€the€citation€in€the€municipal€court.€€If€he€prevails€in€municipal€court,€or€isÐ  L  Ðotherwise€satisfied€with€the€results,€the€proceeding€is€over€ð!ð€most€likely€more€quickly€and€lessÐ ø 8  Ðexpensively€than€if€it€had€been€filed€originally€in€circuit€court.€€If,€however,€he€does€not€prevail,€heÐ ä $  Ðmay€perfect€a€de€novo€appeal€to€circuit€court.€€This€appeal€suspends€the€monetary€assessmentÐ Ð  Ðimposed€in€the€municipal€court€and€wipes€the€slate€clean.€€The€city€must€prove€its€case€again,€andÐ ¼ü  Ðon€this€occasion,€Mr.€King€has€all€the€procedural€and€substantive€rights€available€to€him,€includingÐ ¨è  Ðthe€right€to€discovery€under€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€the€right€to€have€a€juryÐ ”Ô  Ðdetermine€whether€he€has€violated€the€ordinance,€and€the€right€to€have€the€jury€determine€the€amountÐ €À Ðof€the€monetary€assessment€for€the€violation.Ð l¬ ÐÌà  àWe€adhere€to€our€original€holding€that€Mr.€King€has€not€been€deprived€of€his€right€guaranteedÐ D„ Ðby€Tenn.€Const.€art.€VI,€ðð€14€to€have€a€jury€determine€the€amount€of€the€monetary€assessment€forÐ 0p Ðviolating€Nolensvilleððs€ordinance€because€he€had€an€absolute€right€to€a€jury€trial€by€perfecting€a€deÐ \ Ðnovo€appeal€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€27„5„101.€€Mr.€King€perfected€a€timely€de€novo€appealÐ H Ðto€the€Circuit€Court€for€Williamson€County€and€made€a€timely€demand€for€a€jury€trial€pursuant€toÐ ô4 ÐTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€38.03.€€Even€though€he€voluntarily€dismissed€his€de€novo€appeal€after€the€trial€courtÐ à  Ðgranted€his€certiorari€petition,€we€have€determined€that€he€should€not€be€held€to€this€decision€nowÐ Ì  Ðin€light€of€the€unsettled€legal€issues€existing€at€the€time€the€decision€was€made.€€Mr.€King€would€notÐ ¸ø Ðhave€voluntarily€dismissed€his€de€novo€appeal€had€the€trial€court€denied€his€certiorari€petition€.€€NowÐ ¤ä Ðthat€we€have€reversed€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€grant€his€petition€for€common„law€writ€ofÐ Ð Ðcertiorari,€Mr.€King€should€be€afforded€the€opportunity€to€pursue€his€de€novo€appeal.Ð |¼ ÐÌà@==(ìàò òVII.ˆÐ T ” ÐÌó óà  àWe€vacate€the€November€12,€1999€order€granting€Mr.€Kingððs€petition€for€writ€of€common„Ð ,"l! Ðlaw€certiorari€and€dismissing€his€de€novo€appeal€without€prejudice€at€his€request€and€remand€the€caseÐ #X" Ðto€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€We€tax€the€costs€of€this€appealÐ $D # Ðto€Ronald€M.€King€for€which€execution,€if€necessary,€may€issue.€Ð ð$0!$ ÐÌò òó óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_____________________________Ð È&#& Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€J.