WPC +Dj{'!,yw ,w?Xq rmV\oC$OFSW QycBĂ}]`[vZ<>KkzyorICjTl@ (bMN 41?`i+F;.' 2繴l9A !eޮsȰ=9H)qy3"4J7E{T~Z{'H2ekH7U6)zN }#5_~36}bC=>K"tu;BZdv.z#"(TzTTkyX:xEN )Yלؾ÷:9] ke`+0S̳`En?*cX8qe/ 3Vg#{LNdXFՅ6\Qg㈨`[ ݆yc*F]"i=4ooF3Ty1EQn,1&.HߢXb#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz 1    j 0D0Ntv 0c~EUN 1u1 72 1 72__________________b 0 B 0 D3E D-x 0K ASC 0  0D AHP LaserJet 4Si,,,,,,0l) (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular9?(:i+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|xU(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   (;3$2#  0  .3  0  (9 Z6Times New Roman Regular3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(EhCEKQW]cioAutoList21.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.- -(|G2w$ !.8dd8         0  X3X d(|3&$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3&$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8 dd8     _ 8XXdd8@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @$ATKNOXVILLE  @"June2000Session 0 XX  # XX#  UNDERGROUND,INC.,d/b/aTHEUNDERGROUND,v.THECITYOF 8 KNOXVILLE,TENNESSEEXX    P @M M  DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforKnoxCounty  X @U U No.1428032Hon.DarylR._Fansler_,Chancellor  H    `     h FILEDAUGUST25,2000 (  @*AV) ` dE<` A߈   @No.E200000609COAR3CV   AV) ` dE<` A    TheBeerBoardsummarilysuspendedPetitionerslicencetosellbeerandfollowingahearing,  revokedthepermit.OnappealtoChanceryCourt,theChancellorupheldtherevocation.Weaffirm.  # XXT#XX  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed.  f HerschelPickensFranks# X#XX. ,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHoustonM.Goddard,# X#XX.  F P.J.,andD.MichaelSwiney,# XL#XX. ԀJ.,joined. 6 JerroldL.BeckerandSamuelW.Brown,Knoxville,Tennessee,forappellant,Underground,Inc., V d/b/aTheUnderground. F MichaelKelley,CharlesW.SwansonandJasonH.Long,Knoxville,Tennessee,forappellee,The & CityofKnoxville,Tennessee.   # XX#XX @55' OPINION # XXp #XX Ԉ #" # XX #XX  XXXX      ` InthisactiontheBeerBoardsrevocationofPetitionerspermittosellbeerwas f&!% upheldbytheChanceryCourt.PetitionerappealedtothisCourt. R'"&    ` Theissuespresentedforrevieware: *)z$(  0  0` (#(#1.0 ` (#` (#WhetherthetrialcourterredinupholdingrevocationoftheUndergrounds +R&* beerpermit,becausetheBeerBoardactedillegally,arbitrarily,andin +>'+ excessofitsjurisdiction,bydenyingtheUndergroundtherequisitedue ,*(, process?#-)- (# (# #Ї (Eh83! !"3"  0  0` (#(#3 2Eh  2  .3  0 ` (#` (#  WhetherthetrialcourterredinupholdingrevocationoftheUndergrounds  beerpermit,becausetheBeerBoardsdecisionwasnotsupportedby  substantialandmaterialevidence? 3 ݌ (# (# Ќ  #XXXXO #XXXX#I XX+ #XX I   ` OnMarch25,1999,theBeerBoardsummarilysuspendedtheUndergroundsbeer ` permitpendingascheduledhearingpursuanttoSection427(d)oftheKnoxvilleCityCode, L  basedon receiptofcredibleinformationthatthepermitteehasviolatedvariousprovisionsof 8  ArticleIIofChapter4oftheCode,Chapter24oftheCode,oranyotherlaworordinance $ t relatedtosaleofbeer.  `    ` HearingsweresubsequentlyheldonApril15and20,1999,andbothsides  8  presentedproof.TheBeerBoardthenvotedtorevoketheUndergroundsbeerpermit. $     ` BeforetheChanceryCourt,thepartiesagreedthatthecasewouldbetriedupon   therecorddevelopedbeforetheBeerBoard,andnofurtherproofwasoffered.Inupholdingthe   revocationofthebeerpermit,theChancellorsaidtheUndergroundappearedtobeunder intense   scrutinyandthatthepolicemayhavehadsomepersonalmotivationinsubjectingthe p establishmenttosuchscrutiny,butheconcludedthatifillegalactivitiesweretakingplace,the \ motivationofthepolicewasimmaterial. H      ` TheChancellorfoundthatthetestimonyofJaneDoe,aconfidentialinformant,  p regardinghertripstotheUndergroundasaminorwasincredibleandgaveitnoweight,buthe  \ didfindthatthetestimonyoftwominorswhowereallowedtoentertheUndergroundwherebeer H wasbeingserved,withoutshowingidentification,aswellasthetestimonyoftwopoliceofficers 4 whoobservedminors,eitherintheUndergroundorleavingthesame,wherebeerwasbeing   consumed.The_Chancellor_ԀalsofoundthatseveralchargesagainsttheUndergroundwere   withoutmerit.     ` Astothefirstissueonappeal,theproperstandardbywhichthetrialcourt  reviewstheBeerBoardsdecision,is withatrialdenovoasasubstituteforanappeal.Tenn. l CodeAnn.575108(d). Denovointhisinstancemeansthatthetrialjudgeistoweighthe X  evidenceandmakeherowndecisionwithoutregardtoanyactiontheBeerBoardmayhave D! taken,thussubstitutingherownjudgmentforthatoftheBoard,asopposedtomerelydeciding 0"  whethertheBeerBoardactedarbitrarilyorillegally. Richardsv.LewisburgAlcoholicBeverage #l! Commission,543S.W.2d852(Tenn.1977);Cantrellv.DeKalbCo.BeerBoard,376S.W.2d $X" 480(Tenn.1964);Tuckerv.HumphreysCounty,944S.W.2d613(Tenn.Ct.App.1996). $D #    ` Inthiscase,theChancellorwasrequiredtoweightheevidenceandmakehis &"% decisionregardingthemeritsofthecharges,asifthecasehadoriginatedinhisowncourt. '#& Richards. (#'    ` ThebasisoftheappellantsargumentseemstobethattheBoardactedimproperly |*%) bysummarilysuspendingthebeerpermitpendingahearing,thusadenialofthepetitionersdue h+&* process.     ` Abeerpermitisnotapropertyright.Sparksv.BeerCommitteeofBlountCounty,  339S.W.2d23(Tenn.1960).Thus,thesuspensionofabeerpermitcannottriggeran t unconstitutionaldenialofproceduraldueprocess,asappellanturgesthisCourttofind.Eye ` Clinic,P.C.v.JacksonMadisonCountyGeneralHosp.,986S.W.2d565(Tenn.Ct.App.1998). L  Moreover,theSupremeCourthaspreviouslyfoundthatduetotheproceduralsafeguards 8  guaranteedbyadenovoreviewinTenn.CodeAnn.575108(d),noticeisnotabsolutely $ t necessary,noristhelackthereoffataltoabeerpermitrevocation.Richards.Weconcludethat  ` thisissueiswithoutmerit.  L     ` TheUndergroundalsoarguesthatthebeerpermitwasimproperlyrevoked $  becausetherewasnosubstantialandmaterialevidencetoprovideabasisforrevocation.The   initialsummaryrevocationwasbasedupon credibleinformationthatthepermitteehasviolated   variousprovisionsofArticleIIofChapter4ofthe[City]Code,Chapter24oftheCode,orany   otherlaworordinanceregulatingthemanufacture,sale,receipt,possessionortransportationof   intoxicatingliquor.WhilewehavenotbeenprovidedwithacopyoftheCitysordinance,both p partiesagreethattheprovisionissetforthintheCode,andtheCityhas,pursuanttoitspolice \ power,enactedsuchprovisionallowingittosummarilysuspendbeerpermitsontheabove H quotedbasis.SeeRichards. 4    ` Thequestionthusbecomeswhethercredibleinformationexisted.Thereis  \ nothingintherecordtoshowexactlywhatinformationtheBeerBoardandtheCityLaw H Departmenthadbeengivenatthetimeofthesummarysuspension.Theinformationthatwas 4 presentedatthesubsequenthearingdemonstratedthatminorshadbeenallowedtoenterthe   Undergroundwithoutbeingaskedforidentificationwhenbeerwasbeingserved,andthe   Undergroundwas,byadmission,aplacewheredancingoccurred.TheTrialCourtfoundthe  underagedwitnessestestimonytobecredible,whichprovidedabasisforrevocationofthebeer  permit,basedupontheCityCodeSection440(c)whichdoesnotallowbeertobesoldwhere  dancingisallowedandminorsareallowedtofrequent.WheretheTrialJudgeobservesand l hearsthewitness,wedefertohisjudgmentontheissueofcredibility.Theevidencesupportsthe X  ChancellorsfindingthatSection440(c)wasviolatedandformsa_valid_Ԁbasisforrevokingthe D! Undergroundsbeerpermit.WeaffirmthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtrevokingthe 0"  Undergroundsbeerpermit. #l!    ` Thecostoftheappealisassessedtotheappellant,Underground,Inc.,andthe $D # causeremanded. %0!$ #XXXX## XX#XX    `     h     _________________________ )$(    `     h     HerschelPickensFranks,J. *%)