ÿWPCé 0# °UN» %  0cU<rw@®4î 0D 0J] 0T§ 0^û 0hY 0rÁ 0|3 0†¯ 05 1uÅ 0d: AQž Æï 0Dµ 0@ù 0D9 U>} D/» Bê B D3$ B)W DC€ AMà U* ^: v~˜vÓ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(;cW$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XaBXXXÔ-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman –—U˜e™Uš›£œÓ€©¬n~<$X lT ô3|x¬($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ !" %Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman'''÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd&&&&'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d))))7Border 1dd "*Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial TÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€,XÔÌÌò òJulyÏ24,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€,ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€üÃXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Ó›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌà àà à€€€€______________________________________________ÌÌò òRIVERBLUFF€COOPERATIVE,€INC.,ÌÙ€ ÙœßR€+-*A1-j|hü` à. `€€@ÿRß›CHICKASAW€BLUFF€COOPERATIVE,ÌINC.,€KEVIN€KANE,€DAVID€AND€KAY€ÌSOLOMON,€T.€J.€AND€EIGA€ODEN,€ÌDENNIS€AND€LANA€SMITH,€ULYSÌAND€JOAN€WARD,€JAY€AND€PATÌFERGUSON,€STANTON€BRYANT,€ÌGEORGE€T.€LEWIS€III,€KEVIN€ANDÌGAYLE€GRAUER,€LARRY€AND€JOYCEÌHASSEL,€PATRICK€W.€HALLORAN,ÌRICHARD€J.€RAINES,€MARY€PIPERÌAND€PETER€STAMBROOK,€ó óÌÌà àPlaintiffs„Appellants,ÌÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€02A01„9805„CH„00128Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àShelby€Chancery€No.€110123„1Ìò òCITY€OF€MEMPHIS€ANDÌMAYOR€W.€W.€HERENTON,€ó óÌÌà àDefendants„Appellees,ÌÌandÌÌò òCHICKASAW€BLUFFS€CONSERVANCY,€INC.,€ó óÌÌà àIntervening€Appellee„Defendant.Ì____________________________________________________________________________ÌÌFrom€the€Chancery€Court€of€Shelby€County€at€Memphis.Ìò òHonorable€W.€Michael€Maloan,€Chancelloró óÌÌò òCannon€F.€Allenó ó,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌò òSara€Falkinhamó ó,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€Plaintiffs/Appellants.ÌÌò òKen€McCownó ó,€Deputy€City€Attorney,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendants/Appellees€City€of€Memphis€and€Mayor€W.€W.ÏHerenton.ÌÌò òEdward€M.€Bearmanó ó,€BRANSON€&€BEARMAN,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌò òReva€M.€Kriegeló ó,€DONATI€&€ASSOCIATES,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€Intervening€Defendant/Appellee€Chickasaw€Bluffs€Conservancy.ÌÌò òÌó óOPINION€FILED:ÌÌò òAFFIRMED€IN€PART€AND€REMANDEDÌó óÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òPER€œCURIAMó óÌÌÌ›ÌÓÓœà àThis€appeal€involves€a€dispute€concerning€the€construction€of€aÏpedestrian€walkway€along€the€top€of€the€Fourth€Chickasaw€Bluff€overlooking€theÏMississippi€River€on€the€east€side€of€Riverside€Drive€between€Union€AvenueÏand€Calhoun€Street€in€downtown€Memphis.€€This€is€the€second€controversyÏconcerning€the€walkway€to€reach€this€Courtò ò.€ó óPreviously€the€Court€considered€anÏappeal€by€the€Memphis€mayor€from€the€chancery€court€order€requiring€him€toÏexecute€the€construction€contract€for€the€walkway.€€ò òòòChickasaw€BluffsÏConservancy,€et€al€v.€The€City€of€Memphis,€et€aló óóó,€C.A.€No.€02A01„9607„CH„00169€(Tenn.€App.€Mar.€25,€1997).€€The€pertinent€facts€established€inÍò òòòChickasaw€Bluff€Conservancyó óóó€set€out€in€this€Courtððs€opinion,€as€amplified€byÏthe€record€in€this€case,€provide€a€helpful€history€of€the€events€leading€to€theÏpresent€controversy.€€Ìà àThe€walkway€is€the€centerpiece€of€a€five€mile€sidewalk€system€linkingÏÔ_ÔriverfrontÔ_Ô€parks,€historic€sights,€cultural€centers€and€commercial€and€residentialÏdevelopments€in€Memphis.€€A€walkway€system€has€been€projected€since€the€lateÏ1960's,€and€with€the€advent€of€various€urban€renewal€projects€in€downtownÏMemphis€in€the€1980's,€efforts€to€build€a€walkway€escalated.€€Ìà àIn€1982,€the€òòCenter€City€and€Ô_ÔRiverfrontÔ_Ô€Public€Spaces€PlanóóÏrecommended€that€a€walkway€be€built€into€the€face€of€the€bluff.€€This€andÏsubsequent€plans€ignited€controversy€between€public€and€private€interests.€ÏAfter€several€years,€the€competing€interests€reached€a€compromise€permittingÏconstruction€of€the€Ô_ÔwalkwayÔ_Ô€along€the€face€of€the€bluff€west€of€the€propertiesÏowned€by€the€Ô_ÔRiverbluffÔ_Ô€and€Chickasaw€Bluff€Cooperatives.€€The€compromise,Ïwhich€called€for€the€walkway€to€be€built€along€the€top€of€the€bluff,€wasÏincorporated€into€the€terms€and€conditions€of€the€ð ðSouth€Bluffs€PlannedÏDevelopment,€P.D.€89„319.ðð€€ÌÔ_Ôà àIn€the€spring€of€1992,€the€South€Bluffs€developer€requested€a€land€useÏchange,€changing€the€zoning€of€the€area€from€commercial€to€mixed€residentialÍand€commercial€use.ò ò€€ó óThe€developerððs€proposal€called€for€the€construction€ofÏnine€single€family€residences€along€the€crest€of€the€bluff€and€eliminated€theÏwalkway€he€was€required€to€build€under€P.D.€89„319.€€Ultimately,€the€City,€theÏChickasaw€Bluffs€Conservancy€and€the€South€Bluffs€developer€reached€aÏcompromise€which€permitted€the€construction€of€nine€homes€along€the€crest€ofÏthe€bluff€and€proposed€that€the€walkway€be€cut€into€the€face€of€the€bluff€eightÏfeet€below€the€crest.€€That€compromise€was€incorporated€into€the€CityÏCouncilððs€resolution€of€December€8,€1992,€approving€the€amendmentÏconditioned€upon€construction€of€the€walkway€as€described.€€While€theÏcompromise€relieved€the€developer€from€his€obligation€to€build€the€walkway,€itÏobligated€him€to€provide€financial€security€and€to€build€connectors€to€theÏwalkway€across€his€property€at€Calhoun€and€Butler€Streets.€€ò ò€€ó óÌà àEngineering€reports€obtained€by€both€the€City€and€the€South€BluffsÏdeveloper€indicated€that€construction€of€a€walkway€cut€or€ð ðnotchedðð€into€theÏbluff€would€not€destabilize€the€bluff.€€The€amended€planned€development€wasÏdesignated€P.D.€91„330,€and€it€obligated€the€City€to€build€the€entire€walkwayÏinto€the€face€of€the€bluff€approximately€eight€feet€below€the€crest,€and€itÏobligated€the€developer€to€construct€connectors€to€the€walk€at€Calhoun€andÏButler€Streets.€€In€addition,€the€City€Council€required€the€developer€to€notifyÍprospective€purchasers€of€homes€atop€the€bluff€regarding€construction€of€theÏwalkway.€€Ìà àThe€City€Council€entertained€a€motion€to€reconsider€the€December€8,Ï1992,€resolution€amending€the€South€Bluffs€Planned€Development€and€placedÏthe€reconsideration€of€the€resolution€on€the€City€Councilððs€agenda€for€January€5,Ï1993.ò ò€€ó óAt€the€January€5,€1993,€City€Council€meeting,€the€South€Bluffs€developerÏintroduced€a€letter€from€professional€engineers€and€contractors€that€opined€thatÏno€adverse€effects€would€be€sustained€to€the€bluff€by€construction€of€theÏwalkway€if€prudent€engineering€practices€were€followed.€€After€hearingÏcomments€from€the€public€and€receiving€the€testimony€of€professional€engineersÏthat€cutting€into€the€bluff€would€not€undermine€its€stability,€the€City€CouncilÏapproved€the€amended€Planned€Development,€designated€as€P.D.€91„330.€€TheÏCity€Councilððs€January€5,€1993,€resolution€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àò òWHEREASó ó,€Section€14€of€the€Zoning€Ordinance„Regulations€of€the€City€of€Memphis€and€ShelbyÏCounty,€being€a€section€of€the€Joint€Ordinance„Resolution€No.€3064,€dated€October€7,€1980,Ïauthorizes€the€Council€of€the€City€of€Memphis€toÏgrant€a€planned€development€for€certain€statedÏpurposes€in€the€various€zoning€districts;€and,ÌÌà8 àà8 àò òWHEREASó ó,€The€Memphis€City€Council€on€July€25,Ï1989,€approved€the€application€of€South€BluffsÏDevelopment€Associates€(P.D.€89„319)€for€a€plannedÏdevelopment€located€at€the€northwest€corner€of€WestÍGeorgia€Avenue€and€Tennessee€Street;€and€ÌÌà8 àà8 àò òWHEREASó ó,€The€Memphis€City€Council€on€July€21,Ï1992,€approved€the€application€of€South€BluffsÏDevelopment€Associates€(P.D.€91„330)€amending€AreaÏA€of€the€planned€development€to€permitÏpredominantly€low€density€residential€development;Ïand€ÌÌà8 àà8 àò òWHEREASó ó,€The€Council€of€the€City€of€MemphisÏreceived€the€recommendation€of€the€Land€UseÏControl€Board,€the€report€and€recommendation€of€theÏOffice€of€Planning€and€Development€regarding€theÏproposed€planned€development;€and€ÌÌà8 àà8 àò òWHEREASó ó,€The€Council€of€the€City€of€Memphis€heldÏa€public€hearing€on€the€planned€development,€receivedÏand€considered€the€presentations€of€all€partiesÏconcerned€with€the€proposed€development;€and,€€€à8 à€€ÌÌà8 àà8 àò òWHEREASó ó,€The€Council€of€the€City€of€MemphisÏresolved€that€the€bluff€walkway€feature€should€beÏlocated€at€the€crest€of€the€river€bluff€in€Area€A€andÏthat€the€specific€design€should€be€subject€to€site€planÏreview;€and,ÌÌà8 àà8 àò òWHEREASó ó,€South€Bluffs€Associates€has€filed€a€siteÏplan€for€development€of€Area€A€which€provides€for€aÏmodified€location€of€the€bluff€walkway€recessed€at€theÏcrest€of€the€bluff€and€has€proposed€a€specific€designÏfor€constructing€the€walkway€at€that€location;€and,€ÌÌà8 àà8 àò òWHEREASó ó,€The€City€Council€has€received€aÏpresentation€of€the€Area€A€site€plan€including€theÏrevised€location€and€specific€design€plan€for€the€bluffÏwalkway;€€à8 àÌÌà8 àà8 àò òNOW,€THEREFORE€BE€IT€RESOLVEDó ó€By€theÍCouncil€of€the€City€of€Memphis€that€the€site€planÏproposed€by€South€Bluffs€Associates€including€theÏrevised€location€of€the€bluff€walkway€is€herebyÏapproved€subject€to€the€attached€conditions.€ÌÌà8 àà8 àò òBE€IT€FURTHER€RESOLVEDó ó€That€the€approvedÏsite€plan€shall€be€deemed€to€be€in€compliance€with€theÏrequirements€of€said€aforementioned€section€of€theÏZoning€Ordinance„Regulations€as€well€as€the€approvedÏoutline€plan.€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à*à àà à*à àà à*ÌÌòòà8 àà8 àConditions:ÌÌà8 àà8 àóó8.€€The€Bluffwalk€shall€begin€at€a€point€where€ButlerÏAvenue€intersects€with€the€northwest€corner€of€AreaÏA€and€shall€continue€along€the€bluff€past€theÏsouthwest€corner€of€the€proposed€Cornerstone€InnÏand€shall€connect€with€the€northern€terminus€of€theÏexisting€Bluffwalk€easement€located€at€the€west€end€ofÏCalhoun€Avenue€as€reflected€on€the€final€plat€forÏPhase€One€of€P.€D.€89„319.€€Turley€shall€constructÏadequate€access€to€the€Bluffwalk€at€or€around€ButlerÏAvenue€and€at€or€around€the€south€property€line€ofÏthe€proposed€Cornerstone€Inn.ÌÌÓÓà àThe€final€plat€for€P.D.€91„330,€approved€on€April€6,€1993,€shows€theÏwalkway€on€city€property€with€connectors€and€easements€through€the€SouthÏBluffs€development.€€Ìà àIn€1994€and€1995,€the€City€undertook€feasibility€studies€to€determineÏthe€best€walkway€design.€€In€June,€1994,€the€City€contracted€with€J.€RitchieÏSmith€Associates,€a€landscape€architecture€firm,€to€prepare€a€design€andÍfeasibility€study€for€the€walkway.ò ò€€ó óAlso€in€the€summer€of€1994,€the€MayorÏappointed€a€Riverbluff€Walkway€Review€Committee€to€evaluate€the€proposalsÏdeveloped€by€J.€Ritchie€Smith€Associates.€€The€landscape€architect€submittedÏthree€proposals€which€included€(1)€an€elevated€boardwalk,€(2)€a€precastÏconcrete€sidewalk€notched€into€the€bluff€and€(3)€a€cast„in„place€concreteÏsidewalk€and€retaining€wall€notched€into€the€bluff€and€stabilized€by€soldier€piles.€ÏEngineering€reports€indicated€that€construction€of€an€elevated€boardwalk€wouldÏbe€the€least€intrusive.€€The€City€conducted€hearings€and€public€forums€at€whichÏthe€Cityððs€consulting€team€made€presentations€to€the€public€on€the€results€ofÏtheir€feasibility€study€and€design€recommendations.€€Many€residents€of€theÏSouth€Bluffs€development€and€the€Chickasaw€and€Riverbluff€CooperativesÏattended.€€At€these€meetings,€the€residents€voiced€their€concerns€andÏopposition€to€construction€of€the€walkway€and€to€its€elevated€design.Ìà àUltimately,€the€City€and€the€consulting€team€reached€a€consensus,€callingÏfor€the€construction€of€a€cast„in„place€concrete€sidewalk€and€retaining€wallÏnotched€into€the€bluff€with€the€addition€of€soldier€piles€to€be€installed€at€closeÏintervals€in€the€land€above€the€notch€in€order€to€provide€continuous€support€forÏthe€soil€both€during€and€after€construction.€€On€February€21,€1995,€the€CityÏCouncil€held€another€public€hearing€on€the€appropriation€of€funds€for€theÍwalkway€at€which€the€various€design€alternatives€and€stability€issues€wereÏreviewed.ò ò€€ó óThe€City€Council€heard€testimony€from€the€consultants€and€fromÏCity€Engineer€James€Collins€that€neither€the€elevated€boardwalk€nor€theÏnotched€walkway,€if€constructed€properly,€would€destabilize€the€bluff.€ÏThereafter,€the€City€Council€appropriated€over€$1€Million€in€federal€funds€itÏalready€had€received€for€the€project€and€appropriated€additional€local€funds€inÏexcess€of€$500,000€for€construction.€€Ìà àIn€1995,€final€designs€were€prepared€with€the€consultation€of€the€CityððsÏengineers.ò ò€€ó óOn€August€29,€1995,€the€Riverbluff€Walkway€Review€CommitteeÏapproved€the€design€and€construction€plan.€€The€project€was€put€out€for€bid,Ïand€Chris„Hill€Construction€Company€was€awarded€the€contract.€€A€contractÏwas€prepared€and€executed€by€City€officials,€but€on€February€20,€1996,€theÏMayor€advised€the€City€Council€that€he€would€not€sign€the€contract.€€In€March,Ï1996,€the€Conservancy€filed€suit€in€the€Shelby€County€Chancery€Court€againstÏthe€Mayor€seeking€a€writ€of€mandamus€to€compel€his€execution€of€the€contractÏpursuant€to€P.D.€91„330.€€Ultimately€in€March,€1998,€this€Court€affirmed€theÏChancery€Courtððs€judgment€finding€that€the€Conservancy€was€entitled€to€a€writÏof€mandamus€requiring€the€mayor€to€proceed€with€construction€of€the€walkwayÏpursuant€to€P.D.€91„330€and€its€incident€resolutions.€€Ìà àThe€contract€was€rebid,€and€Grinder€Brothers€Construction€CompanyÏwas€awarded€the€contract€in€June,€1997.€€On€September€2,€1997,€the€CityÏCouncil€passed€a€resolution€providing€additional€funding€for€the€constructionÏcontract,€and€on€September€30,€1997,€the€notice€to€proceed€was€issued€to€theÏcontractor.€€The€City€Council€also€authorized€creation€of€a€new€design€reviewÏcommittee€comprised€of€bluff€residents€and€walkway€supporters.€€ThisÏcommittee€met€four€times€in€September€and€October,€1997,€and€recommendedÏlandscaping€and€security€enhancements€to€the€project.€€Ìà àOn€October€27,€1997,€the€plaintiffs,€residents€of€the€Riverbluff€andÏChickasaw€Bluffs€Cooperatives,€filed€the€instant€lawsuit€against€the€City€toÏenjoin€construction€of€the€notched€sections€of€the€walkway€under€the€approvedÏplans€and€specifications.€€€The€plaintiffs€allege€that€notching€the€bluff€wouldÏhave€a€catastrophic€effect€on€their€homes€and€property€because€the€bluff€isÏcomprised€of€loess€soil,€a€silty,€windblown€soil€that€destabilizes€when€saturatedÏwith€water.€€The€plaintiffs€assert€that€notching€the€bluff€and€building€theÏwalkway€would€result€in€a€nuisance€and€remove€the€lateral€and€subadjacentÏsupport€from€their€property,€thus€increasing€the€potential€for€landslides,€andÏleaving€them€with€no€adequate€remedy€at€law.€€Also,€the€plaintiffs€allege€that€theÏwalkway,€as€proposed,€does€not€comply€with€the€City€Council€resolutions€andÍthe€final€plat€of€P.D.€91„330.€€They€sought€monetary€damages€as€well€asÏinjunctive€relief.Ìà àOn€March€12,€1998,€the€trial€court€granted€the€motion€to€intervene€filedÏby€the€Conservancy.€€On€May€6,€1998,€the€trial€court€granted€the€defendantsððÏmotion€for€summary€judgment€on€the€plaintiffsðð€claims€for€injunctive€relief€as€toÏnuisance€and€the€loss€of€lateral€support.€€In€granting€the€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment,€the€trial€court€determined€that€immediate€and€irreparable€harm€wasÏnot€established€under€the€injunction€requirements€of€Rule€65€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€ÏThat€judgment€was€made€final€under€Rule€54.02€Tenn.R.Civ.P.,€and€the€noticeÏof€appeal€was€filed€the€same€date.€€The€trial€court€later€granted€the€defendantsððÏmotion€for€summary€judgment€as€to€the€third€count€regarding€the€projectððsÏcompliance€with€P.D.€91„330€and€its€incident€resolutions.€€That€order€has€notÏbeen€appealed€and€is€not€an€issue€before€the€Court.€€The€claim€for€moneyÏdamages€is€still€pending.Ìà àOn€May€7,€1998,€the€plaintiffs€filed€in€this€Court€a€motion€for€stay€ofÏconstruction€pending€appeal,€which€the€Court€remanded€to€the€trial€court€byÏOrder€entered€May€19,€1998.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€stay.€€Construction€onÏthe€project€began€on€June€1,€1998.€€On€June€4,€1998,€the€plaintiffs€filed€aÏrenewed€motion€for€a€stay€of€construction€pending€appeal.€€On€June€17,€1998,Íthe€Court€granted€the€plaintiffsðð€motion€to€stay€construction€along€the€northÏnotch€and€the€south€notch€of€the€bluff€until€September€1,€1998,€conditioned€onÏplaintiffs€posting€the€bond€set€by€the€trial€court.€€The€Courtððs€order€expresslyÏpermitted€further€construction€to€proceed€in€the€areas€not€included€in€thisÏproceeding€and€permitted€the€parties€to€undertake€ð ðwind„up€and€stabilizationððÏprocedures€to€the€bluff.€€The€June€17€order€also€permitted€an€expeditedÏappellate€schedule€culminating€in€oral€argument€before€this€Court€on€July7,Ï1998.€€Plaintiffs€did€not€post€the€bond€and€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€was€notÏstayed.€€€€€Ìà àPlaintiffsðð€issues€for€review,€as€set€out€in€their€brief,€are:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àI.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€summaryÏjudgment€on€plaintiffððs€claim€for€injunctive€relief€forÏlateral€support€on€the€basis€that€the€plaintiffs€couldÏnot€establish€immediate€and€irreparable€harm€underÏRule€65€Tenn.R.Civ.P.,€and,€alternatively,€whetherÏgenuine€issues€of€material€fact€existed€as€to€theseÏissues€warranting€a€trial€on€the€merits.€€€ÌÌà8 àà8 àII.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€grantingÏsummary€judgment€on€plaintiffsðð€claim€for€injunctiveÏrelief€for€lateral€support€on€the€basis€that€plaintiffsÏhad€an€adequate€remedy€at€law.€€ÌÌÓÓà àA€trial€court€should€grant€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€only€if€theÏmovant€demonstrates€that€there€are€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€and€thatÏthe€moving€party€is€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€Rule€56.03ÍTenn.R.Civ.P.;€€òòò òByrd€v.€Halló óóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€partyÏmoving€for€summary€judgment€bears€the€burden€of€demonstrating€that€noÏgenuine€issues€of€material€fact€exist.€€òòò òByrdó óóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€210.€€In€òòò òByrdó óóó,€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àOnce€it€is€shown€by€the€moving€party€that€there€is€noÏgenuine€issue€of€material€fact,€the€nonmoving€partyÏmust€then€demonstrate,€by€affidavits€or€discoveryÏmaterials,€that€there€is€a€genuine,€material€factÏdispute€to€warrant€a€trial.€€(Citations€omitted).€€InÏthis€regard,€Rule€56.05€provides€that€the€nonmovingÏparty€cannot€simply€rely€upon€his€pleadings€but€mustÏset€forth€òòspecific€factsóó€showing€that€there€is€a€genuineÏissue€of€material€fact€for€trial.ÌÌòòò òId.ó óóó€at€211.€(Emphasis€in€original).Ìò òÌÓÓà àó óThe€order€granting€defendantsðð€summary€judgment€incorporates€theÏjudgeððs€ruling€from€the€bench€at€the€conclusion€of€the€summary€judgmentÏhearing.€€The€judgment€states€as€pertinent:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àIn€this€case€the€risk€or€imminency€andÏcertainty€of€injury€is€a€matter€of€dispute€among€theÏvarious€experts€which€the€Court€has€the€benefit€of€byÏaffidavit€and€deposition.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àThe€issue€is€whether€the€likelihood€of€harmÏreach€such€a€degree€of€certainty€that€an€injunctionÏshould€issue€to€prevent€the€enactment€of€PD€91„330.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àAfter€considering€all€of€the€legal€requirementsÏof€this€case,€the€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€summaryÏjudgment€should€issue€in€favor€of€the€defendant.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àThe€proof€fails€to€establish€the€immediate€andÏirreparable€injury€requirements€of€Rule€65.€€PlaintiffsÏhave€an€adequate€remedy€at€law,€that€of€damages.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àThe€plaintiffs€have€failed€to€also€prove€thatÏthereððs€an€issue,€per€se,€that€the€activity€of€defendantsÏwould€be€imminent€and€certain€to€occur€and€entitleÏthem€to€prospective€relief.ÌÌÓÓà àAlthough€the€trial€court€appears€to€premise€its€decision,€at€least€in€part,Ïon€the€failure€of€plaintiffs€to€show€immediate€and€irreparable€damages,€from€theÏrecord€before€us,€it€appears€there€is€a€genuine€dispute€of€material€fact€on€thatÏissue.ò òÌó óà àThe€construction€of€the€walk€between€Butler€on€the€north€and€CalhounÏon€the€south€is€authorized€as€part€of€Memphis€Ordinance€P.D.€91„330.€€€WeÏfind€nothing€in€the€record€pertaining€to€legislation€authorizing€construction€ofÏthe€walk€north€of€Butler.€€We€will€first€deal€with€the€case€as€it€pertains€to€theÏconstruction€pursuant€to€P.D.€91„330.€€In€ò òòò€Chickasaw€Bluffs€Conservancy,€ó óóóthisÏCourt€found:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àUnder€the€terms€and€conditions€of€the€plannedÏdevelopment€ordinance,€PD„91„330,€the€Developer€isÏobligated€to€construct€access€to€the€notched€bluffÏwalk.€€By€the€same€token,€the€Developer€agreed€to€thisÏobligation€only€on€the€condition€that€the€CityÏcomplete€the€remainder€of€the€subject€bluff€walk.€€TheÏCityððs€commitment€to€do€so€became€a€part€of€theÏterms€and€conditions€of€the€planning€ordinance.€€TheÍMayor€is€obligated€to€perform€as€necessary€to€carryÏout€the€complete€terms€of€the€ordinance,€and,Ïtherefore,€is€obligated€to€proceed€with€theÏconstruction€of€the€walk€and€to€require€the€DeveloperÏto€provide€the€access€to€the€walk.€€ÌÌò òòòId.ó óóó€at€15.ÌÌÓÓà àActions€taken€by€city€councils€may€be€either€legislative€or€administrative,Ïand€the€threshold€question€is€whether€the€council€exercised€its€legislative€orÏadministrative€authority.€€The€term€ð ðadministrativeðð€is€often€usedÏinterchangeably€with€judicial€or€quasi„judicial.€€ò òòòFallin€v.€Knox€County€Bd.€ofÏCommissionersóóó ó,€656€S.W.2d€338€(Tenn.€1983).€€The€City€Councilððs€approval€ofÏthe€resolution€mandating€construction€of€that€part€of€the€walkway€was€doneÏpursuant€to€its€administrative€authority€and€the€plans€for€construction€of€theÏwalkway€were€promulgated€pursuant€to€an€existing€zoning€ordinance€for€aÏplanned€development.€€ò òòòChickasaw€Bluffs€Conservancy€et€al.€v.€City€of€Memphis,Ïet€al.óóó ó,€No.€02A01„9607„CH„00169€(Tenn.€App.€March€25,€1997)€p.€13.€€Ìòòò òà àóóó óCitizens€generally€cannot€maintain€a€suit€to€restrain€an€action€byÏmunicipal€authorities€unless€they€are€acting€illegally€and€the€effect€of€the€illegalÏaction€occasions€a€specific€injury€not€common€with€an€injury€to€the€citizens€asÏa€whole.€€ò òòòState€v.€American€Glanszstoff€Corporationó óóó,€167€Tenn.€597,€72€S.W.2dÏ775€(1934);€ò òòòReams€v.€Board€of€Mayor€and€Aldermenó óóó,€155€Tenn.€222€(1927).€ÍThus,€two€prongs€are€required€to€maintain€a€suit€such€as€the€instant€case.€€As€toÏP.D.€91„330,€plaintiffs€satisfied€the€second€prong€by€their€special€interest.€ÏHowever,€the€record€does€not€indicate€that€plaintiffs€have€satisfied€the€firstÏprong.€€The€complaint€does€not€allege,€nor€is€there€any€proof€in€the€record€thatÏP.D.€91„330€is€illegal€or€otherwise€arbitrary€and€capricious€legislation.€€Ìà àBoth€legislative€and€administrative€decisions€are€presumed€to€be€valid,Ïand€a€heavy€burden€of€proof€rests€upon€the€shoulders€of€the€party€whoÏchallenges€the€action.€€ò òòòMcCallen€v.€City€of€Memphisóóó ó,€786€S.W.2d€633,€641Ï(Tenn.€1990).€€€When€reviewing€administrative€acts,€the€Court€must€determineÏwhether€the€action€of€the€city€council€was€illegal€or€in€excess€of€jurisdiction.€Ïò òòòMcCallen€óóó óat€641.€€If€the€exercise€of€authority€by€the€governmental€body€can€beÏclassified€as€illegal,€arbitrary€or€capricious,€courts€have€routinely€provided€relief.€ÏAbuse€of€discretion,€arbitrariness,€capriciousness€and€unreasonableness€areÏterms€often€used€interchangeably.€€ò òòòHoover€Motor€Exp.€Co.,€Inc.€v.€Railroad€andÏPublic€Utilities€Commissionóóó ó,€261€S.W.2d€233,€238€(Tenn.€1953).€€However,€theÏCourt€must€refrain€from€substituting€its€judgment€for€that€of€the€localÏgovernmental€body.€€An€act€will€be€invalidated€only€when€the€decision€is€clearlyÏillegal,€arbitrary€or€capricious.€òò€ò òMcCallenó óóó€at€642.€€€€Ìà àUnder€the€ð ðillegal,€arbitrary€or€capriciousðð€standard€of€review€forÍadministrative€acts,€it€is€evident€that€the€circumstances€of€this€case€do€notÏwarrant€the€invalidation€of€the€act€of€the€Memphis€City€Council.€€PlaintiffsÏhave€not€alleged€that€the€City€Councilððs€resolutions€were€illegal,€and€there€hasÏbeen€no€proof€introduced€to€suggest€that.€€Implicit€in€the€prior€ò òòòChickasawÏBluffs€Conservancyóóó ó€opinion€was€the€finding€that€P.D.€91„330€and€its€incidentÏresolutions€were€legal€and€valid.€€Furthermore,€we€decline€to€find€that€theÏordinance€and€resolutions€are€arbitrary€or€capricious.€€Given€the€long€history€ofÏattempts€to€develop€the€bluff€dating€to€1982,€the€numerous€engineering€studiesÏperformed€by€the€City€and€the€developer,€and€the€public€hearings,€agreementsÏand€compromises€reached€along€the€way,€it€can€hardly€be€said€that€theÏordinance€and€incident€resolutions€are€in€any€way€arbitrary€or€capricious.€ÏThere€is€clearly€material€evidence€to€support€the€actions€of€the€City€Council.€Ïò òòòSee,€Laidlaw€Environmental€Servs.€Of€Nashville,€Inc.€v.€Metro.€Board€ofÏHealth,€ó óóó934€S.W.2d€40,€49€(Tenn.€App.€1996);€òòò òSexton€v.€Anderson€Countyóóó ó,€587ÏS.W.2d€663,€666€(Tenn.€App.€1979).€€Ìà àTherefore,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€order€granting€defendantsðð€summaryÏjudgment€insofar€as€it€pertains€to€the€construction€authorized€by€P.D.€91„330Ïfor€the€reasons€set€out€in€this€opinion.€€This€Court€may€affirm€a€decree€correctÏin€result€but€rendered€upon€different,€incomplete,€or€erroneous€grounds.€Íò òòòHopkins€v.€Hopkinsó óóó,€572€S.W.2d€639€(Tenn.€1978);€ò òòòDuck€v.€Howelló óóó,€729ÏS.W.2d€110€(Tenn.€App.€1986).Ìà àAs€we€heretofore€noted,€however,€the€record€is€silent€concerningÏlegislative€authority€for€walkway€construction€north€of€Butler.€€Since€suchÏauthority€is€essential€for€action€on€the€part€of€the€City,€it€would€appear€that€theÏrecord€may€be€incomplete.€€In€any€event,€the€existence€of€such€legislativeÏauthority€should€be€determined€in€order€to€consider€the€merits€of€the€appeal€asÏto€the€walkway€construction€not€included€in€P.D.€91„330.€€Ìà àIn€sum,€the€order€of€the€trial€court€granting€summary€judgment€isÏaffirmed€as€to€that€part€of€the€construction€included€in€Memphis€CityÏOrdinance€P.D.€91„330.€€The€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€furtherÏproceedings€concerning€the€construction€of€the€walkway€north€of€Butler,Ïconsistent€with€this€opinion.€€Costs€of€the€appeal€are€assessed€one„half€toÏplaintiffs€and€one„half€to€defendants.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òPER€CURIAMó ó›