WPC~A [AA ABy++$^)ZR5{pB`s|R9rPef#ޮ͒;u 4JFi|Nhk_3b(DAL"AEw ⃷ߝ`Mϸ6w`WA N>Hhsq3,"tČOӷ]Ý1: QréIQ> ZzD2Q }ݣ,yȖjE$ 0$ 0{% 0]& 0?' 0!( 0) 0) 0* 02q+ 0+ 0:, 0Y, 0_2- 0 - 0. 00 B*#2 D/M2 0|2 D/4 04 065 05 0:6 0^6 0<U7 1e7U67U >,8U*j8 8 08 9 P9 1u9 Bl: 72: 0: D3_; D-; 0K;  < AS<m< 03= 0D= A>>> v@@ @@ vA\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4,,,,0:1 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularփF1: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*+ (_2623  ..Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*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   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (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   &&& $_   x 23   x   - -0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7D(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?P%2A`Arial?  SO\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dC)1dxd<:zTop of For7F(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?P%2A`Arial?  SO\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  C)2dxd0KS.SampleKN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   !"# 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`ArialSDU_38(|G2O$ !.8 dd8         0  StarPageciteas((Cite as: 71 S.W.3d 691, *697)3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) dUi)(|3{$ !.8 dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  FN;B1^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3{$ !.8 dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK LargenMcFarland VixIcard TimmFurenGinsburgPursellNat'lSundquistFuerst Trau S.CtGomillionLightfoot L.Edimmunitie[sKesselLenoirMcCrawup[onvigourousfavouredciteas((Cite as: 207 U.S. 161, *179, 28 S.Ct. 40, **46)SDU_32citeas((Cite as: 207 U.S. 161, *179, 28 S.Ct. 40, **47) !.8 dd8     _   8JiXXdd8  @  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#  #Ԉ &   October25,2004Session L XJiX  # XXJi#STATEexrel.JUANITAWILLIAMS,etal.v.TOWNOFMIDTOWN,et J al.XJiX    ^ @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtfor_Roane_ԀCounty  ^ @@No.14,005FrankV.Williams,III,Chancellor  J @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200401007_COA_ԄR3CVFILEDDECEMBER16,_2004_   AV) ` dE<` A      # XXJi#XJiX TheissueinthiscaseistheconstitutionalityofTenn.CodeAnn.61201whichsetspopulation  anddistancelimitationsontheincorporationofcities.ThetownofMidtown,Tennesseeclaimsthe x statutedeprivesitofequalprotectionofthelawsguaranteedbytheUnitedStatesConstitutionand d ArticleXI,Section8oftheTennesseeConstitution.TheChancellorgrantedtheTennesseeAttorney P GeneralsmotiontodismissMidtownscountercomplaintunderTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)forfailure < tostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted.Weholdthatthestatueisconstitutionalandaffirm (x thejudgmentofthetrialcourt. d   Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed;Case < Remanded  (   SharonG.Lee,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichCharlesD.Susano,Jr.andD.  MichaelSwiney,JJ.,joined.  GeraldLargen,Kingston,Tennessee,fortheAppellant,TownofMidtown,Tennessee. t  JohnMcFarland,Kingston,Tennessee,fortheAppellees,StateofTennesseeexrel.Juanita L"! Williams,etal. 8#" PaulG.Summers,MichaelE.Moore,andAnnLouiseVix,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheAppellee, %` $ TennesseeAttorneyGeneralandReporter. %L!%   OPINION  '$#'     OnAugust6,1998,votersintheterritoryproposedtobeincorporatedasthetownof )$) MidtownheldanelectionandvotedtoincorporateundertheMayorAldermaniccitycharterform *%* ofgovernment,Tenn.CodeAnn.61201,etseq.Midtownselectionwasheldpursuanttosection +&+ 9(f)(3)of1998Tenn.Pub.ActsCh.1101,codifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.658108(f)(3).Thissection p,', wassubsequentlyruledunconstitutionalinHuntsvillev.Duncan,15S.W.3d468(Tenn.App.1999). \-(-   OnJune18,2001,Plaintiffs,citizensofMidtown,filedacomplaintallegingthatMidtown  was anillegaldefactomunicipalcorporation,havingbeenincorporatedpursuanttoan  unconstitutionalstatutoryprovision,andthatMidtownscorporatechartershouldbedissolved  becauseitdidnotmeetthegeneralminimumpopulationanddistancerequirementsofTenn.Code t Ann.61201. `   OnAugust28,2003,Midtownfiledacountercomplaintallegingthattheminimum 8  populationanddistancerequirementsestablishedbyTenn.CodeAnn.61201(a)(1)and(b)(1)(A) $ t unconstitutionallydepriveditofequalprotectionunderthelaw.TheTennesseeAttorneyGeneral  ` answered,denyingthatthechallengedprovisionswereunconstitutional,andfiledaTenn.R.Civ.  L  P.12.02(6)motiontodismissthecountercomplaintforfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcan  8  begranted.TheChancellorgrantedthemotion,dismissedthecountercomplaintandenteredan $  orderdissolvingMidtownscorporatecharter.     MidtownappealsandarguesthattheChancellorerredindismissingitscountercomplaint.   OurstandardofreviewisasrecentlystatedbytheSupremeCourtasfollows:   S\ S M !"#(03U?+ ` hp x X?    8  8`   OX XXXJiARule12.02(6)motiontodismissonlyseekstodeterminewhether  thepleadingsstateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted.Sucha  motionchallengesthelegalsufficiencyofthecomplaint,notthe  strengthoftheplaintiff'sproof,and,therefore,mattersoutsidethe s pleadingsshouldnotbeconsideredindecidingwhethertograntthe _ motion.#XJiX XOX4#OX XXXJiSeeBellexrel.Snyderv.Icard,Merrill,Cullis,Timm,Furen K &Ginsburg,P.A.,#XJiX XOX9#OX XXXJiԀ986S.W.2d550,554(Tenn.1999).Inreviewinga 7 motiontodismiss,theappellatecourtmustconstruethecomplaint #s liberally,presumingallfactualallegationstobetrueandgivingthe _ plaintiffthebenefitofallreasonableinferences.#XJiX XOX#OX XXXJiSeePursellv.First K Am.Nat'lBank,#XJiX XOXR#OX XXXJiԀ937S.W.2d838,840(Tenn.1996).Itiswellsettled 7 thatacomplaintshouldnotbe% Q #XJiX XOX#%QVOX XXXJidismissedforfailuretostateaclaim # unlessitappearsthattheplaintiffcanprovenosetoffactsinsupport  ofhisorherclaimthatwouldwarrantrelief.#XJiX XOX#OX XXXJiSeeDoev.Sundquist,#XJiX XOX#OX XXXJiԀ2   S.W.3d919,922(Tenn.1999);#XJiX XOX#OX XXXJiFuerstv.MethodistHosp.S.,#XJiX XOXw#OX XXXJiԀ566 ! S.W.2d847,848(Tenn.1978)...#XJiX XOX#OX XXXJiWereviewthetrialcourt'slegal "  conclusions#XJiX XOXT#OX XXXJidenovo#XJiX XOX#OX XXXJiԀ% S #XJiX XOX'#%SG% T %TOX XXXJiwithoutgivinganypresumptionofcorrectness o#! tothoseconclusions.#XJiX XOX#OX XXXJi[$"` x` x TrauMedofAmerica,Inc.v.AllstateIns.Co.71S.W.3d691,696697(Tenn.2002). &)"$ #XJiX XOXE#Թ  Thechallengedstatutereadsinrelevantpartasfollows: )T$&  8  S*%C*%?+ ` hp x X?OX XXXJi*%'     8  8`   (a)(1)Theresidentsofanyincorporatedmunicipalityorofany   territorywantingtoincorporateunderthischartermayadoptthe  provisionsofthischapterandchapters24ofthistitleinthemanner  providedinthischapter.Thereupon,themunicipalityorterritoryshall t beandbecomeincorporatedandbegovernedashereinsetforth.No ` unincorporatedterritoryshallbeincorporatedundertheprovisionsof L  thischarterunlesssuchterritorycontainsnotfewerthanonethousand 8  fivehundred(1,500)persons,whoshallbeactualresidentsofthe $ t territory. `` x` x    `  *0  0h(#(#0h(#h(#*0(#(#0p(#(#0p(#p(#* (#(# 8  8`   #XJiX XOX #S_ \ ?+ ` hp x X?OX XXXJi(b)(1)(A)Exceptasprovidedinsubdivision(b)(2),nounincorporated _  territoryshallbeincorporatedwithinthree(3)milesofanexisting K  municipalityorwithinfive(5)milesofanexistingmunicipalityof 7 onehundredthousand(100,000)ormoreinpopulationaccordingto #s thelatestcensuscertifiedbythestateplanningoffice."Existing _ municipality"and"existingmunicipalityofonehundredthousand K (100,000)ormoreinpopulation"donotincludeanycountywitha 7 metropolitanformofgovernmentwithapopulationofonehundred # thousandormoreaccordingtothe1990federalcensusorany  subsequent#XJiX XOX%#OX XXXJicensus.8h` x` x   hphp #XJiX XOX(#)!  Tenn.CodeAnn.61201(a)(1)and(b)(1)(A). &   Midtownchallengestherequirementsofaminimum1,500populationandthe3mileand5 T mileminimumdistancefromanexistingmunicipalityasbeing arbitraryandcapricious, @ elaboratinginitscountercomplaintasfollows: , | 8  8`   Thearbitrarinessoftheclassificationisobviouswhenoneconsiders " thatagroupof1499citizensmaynotincorporatethemselvesasa # municipality,whereasagroupcontainingonlyonesinglesolitary $ additionalcitizenmayfreelyincorporateandenjoyallofthe n%  advantages,privileges,rightsandimmunitiesthatmunicipal Z&!! incorporationconveys.1500getsit,1499doesnt;thatisneithergood F'"" sensenorgoodlaw.2(##` x` x MidtownarguesthattheequalprotectionofthelawsguaranteedbytheFourteenthAmendmentto *&% theUnitedStatesConstitutionandArticleXI,Section8oftheTennesseeConstitutionprecludesthe +&& statelegislaturefromsettingsuchminimumpopulationandgeographicdistancestandardsforthe  incorporationofamunicipality.Wenoteattheoutsetthatthereisnoallegationthatinfringement  ofafundamentalrightisinvolvedinthiscase,northattheGeneralAssemblyhascreateda  classificationinvolvingasuspectorprotectedclass,suchasraceornationalorigin. t   Regardingthefederalconstitutionalclaim,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtmadethe  B followingpertinentstatementsinthecaseofHunterv.Pittsburgh,207U.S.161,28S.Ct.40,52  . L.Ed.151(1907):   ?+ ` hp x X?OX XXXJi    8  8`   Municipalcorporationsarepoliticalsubdivisionsofthestate,created H  asconvenientagenciesforexercisingsuchofthegovernmental 4  powersofthestateasmaybeintrustedtothem...Thestate,therefore,  p  atitspleasure,maymodifyorwithdrawallsuchpowers,maytake  \  withoutcompensationsuchproperty,holdititself,orvestitinother H  agencies,expandorcontracttheterritorialarea,unitethewholeora 4 part#XJiX XOX1#% d %d4OX XXXJiofitwithanothermunicipality,repealthecharteranddestroythe   corporation.Allthismaybedone,conditionallyorunconditionally,   withorwithouttheconsentofthecitizens,orevenagainsttheir  protest.Inalltheserespectsthestateissupreme,anditslegislative  body,conformingitsactiontothestate% f #XJiX XOX94#%f5OX XXXJiConstitution,maydoasit  will,unrestrainedbyanyprovisionoftheConstitutionoftheUnited l States.Althoughtheinhabitantsandpropertyownersmay,bysuch X changes,sufferinconvenience,andtheirpropertymaybelessenedin#XJiX XOX'6#% h OX XXXJi D %h7#XJiX XOX7#OX XXXJivaluebytheburdenofincreasedtaxation,orforanyotherreason, 0 theyhavenoright,bycontractorotherwise,intheunalteredor l continuedexistenceofthecorporationoritspowers,andthereis X nothingintheFederalConstitutionwhichprotectsthemfromthese D injuriousconsequences.Thepowerisinthestate,andthosewho 0 legislateforthestatearealoneresponsibleforanyunjustor  oppressiveexerciseofit. ` x` x 1#XJiX XOX8#  Hunter,207U.S.161atp.17879. 6#   OvertheyearssinceHunter,theCourthasnotedatleastoneimportantexceptiontothe %!! generalruleenunciatedabove,see,e.g.,Gomillionv.Lightfoot,364U.S.339,81S.Ct.125,5 &!" L.Ed.2d110(1960);butnosuchexceptionisapplicablehere.WeholdthattheEqualProtection '"# ClauseoftheU.S.Constitutionisnotimplicatedunderthecircumstancesofthepresentcase. x(#$   ArticleXI,Section8oftheTennesseeConstitutionprovidesinrelevantpartasfollows: *F&& : 5,'' SS?+ ` hp x X?OX XXXJi  8  8`   TheLegislatureshallhavenopowertosuspendanygenerallawfor S thebenefitofanyparticularindividual,nortopassanylawforthe ? benefitofindividualsinconsistentwiththegenerallawsoftheland; + nortopassanylawgrantingtoanyindividualorindividuals,rights,  privileges,immunitie[s],% \ #XJiX XOX=#%\}?OX XXXJiorexemptionsotherthansuchasmaybe,by  thesamelawextendedtoanymemberofthecommunity,whomay   beabletobringhimselfwithintheprovisionsofsuchlaw.No   corporationshallbecreatedoritspowersincreasedordiminishedby w  speciallawsbuttheGeneralAssemblyshallprovidebygenerallaws c  fortheorganizationofallcorporations,hereaftercreated,whichlaws O   may,atanytime,bealteredorrepealedandnosuchalterationor ;  repealshallinterferewithordivestrightswhichhavebecomevested.'w ` x` x #XJiX XOX?#= S  TheTennesseeSupremeCourthasstateditisa firmlyestablishedrulethatinorderforthe   provisionsofArticleXI,Section8tocomeintoplay,thelocalactunderattackmustcontravene   somegenerallawthathasmandatory,statewideapplication.KnoxCountyexrel.Kesselv.Lenoir } City,837S.W.2d382,383(Tenn.1992). i   TheTennesseeAttorneyGeneralarguesthatTenn.CodeAnn.61201contravenesno A generallaw,butisitselfagenerallawofstatewideapplication.Thiscourthasheld61201(a)(1) -} and(b)(1)(A)tobeagenerallaw.Huntsvillev.Duncan,15S.W.3d468(Tenn.App.1999);Oakland i v.McCraw,126S.W.3d29(Tenn.App.2003).WethereforeholdthatArticleXI,Section8isnot U implicatedbythegenerallawregardingtheincorporationofcitiesstatewide,Tenn.CodeAnn.61 A 201(a)(1)and(b)(1)(A). -   Initsanswertotheoriginalcomplaint,MidtownassertedthatthePlaintiffsshouldbe  estoppedfromfilingthisaction,statingasfollows:  8  8`   Theserelatorsareestoppedtoproceedfurtherwiththislitigationby y theiractionsininitiatinganewreferendumofthecitizenryofthe e  TownofMidtownforthepurposeofsurrenderingtheTownscharter. Q! Thisreferendumwasconductedbythe_Roane_ԀCountyElection =" Commissionbasedup[on]petitionscirculatedbyandsignedbythe )#y  relators.Asapartoftheircampaigntosecurethevoteofthecitizens $e! ofMidtowntorelinquishtheTownscharter,theserelatorswageda %Q " vigourous[sic]electioneeringcampaign,despitewhichagoodly %=!# majorityofthevotefavoured[sic]thecontinuingretentionofthe &)"$ charterandthecontinuationoftheexistenceoftheTownasa '#% functioningmunicipalityoftheStateofTennessee.Inequity,these ($& relatorsshouldnotbeallowedtosubmittheirclaimsandopposition )$' totheexistenceoftheTowntothesacredarbitramentoftheballet *%( boxand,havinglostinthatforum,thenattempttoachievethesame u+&) endthroughtheirsuitinthisCourt.Itiscontrarytoallprinciplesof  equity,democracy,fairplayandtheAmericanwaytoallowthese  relatorstoloseatthepollsandthenattempttoreversetheirlossthere  bygetting asecondbiteattheapplebypursuingthislitigation.t` x` x B  Weconcurwiththetrialcourtinitsfindingthat,acceptingtheaboveallegationsasentirelytrue,they L  donotcreateacircumstanceunderwhichthedoctrineofjudicialestoppelorequitableestoppel 8  shouldbeinvoked. $ t   Fortheaforementionedreasons,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtdismissingMidtowns  L  countercomplaintisaffirmed,asisthetrialcourtsrulinginitsentirety.Costsonappealare  8  assessedtotheAppellant,TownofMidtown,anditssurety. $  N0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#___________________________________  @  @  @  @  @  p SHARONG.LEE,JUDGE# XXJi<#