WPC jL V"lX\TY !ȒÚ/Uxĭmxbwd]3\e͏(FlRp8+#$1GC}=V8x_kWB ĪHUuZrD93\0X?u&K \ftPu|_t(<5js ?:GY870rPBopK6ҏc+l-o 3exVe` SWP1E!C_JP?ƕk-%MnKgtOߘNyv~3,,Do>a=GmR̛Y߽=~[`-*Rȩ2 ӐbY^;hܑE7?p(j}"\@seVy@!wLZq^I.>&yNhGy3,S'mh'@=.9*@\w"$Tid#!xU: % 044 ! 0 w8 h< 0 0DW 72  bmuZd0 0P>NT^ Vb mdd{{{{{{{{{{ B||||| 1u 0c 0Pq D5 AQG 0P  0D]HP LaserJet 8000 DN PS0,rAZ"Arial RegularX( U$  tpO't3|x ^  G$   BXX  1    _WedonotincludeasummaryofthefactsrelatingtotheassessmentofScheringPloughs ,  propertysincetheappropriatenessoftheassessmentisnotanissueinthisappeal.(DG2$ U!    XX  0  (#$  0  )i)   G$   BXX  4    AtthetimeofthefilingofScheringPloughspetitionforreviewonJuly21,1995,Tenn.Code ,  Ann.6751511(1994Repl.)permittedthefilingofapetitionforreviewofadecisionoftheBoardin    DavidsonCountyorthechancerycourtofthecountywherethedisputedassessmentwasmade.In  | thiscase,thedisputedassessmentwasinShelbyCounty,andScheringPloughfileditspetitioninthe f : ShelbyCountyChanceryCourt.- -   G$   BXX  2    Atthetriallevel,theBoardallegedandtheChancellorcitedathirdbasisinsupportof ,  dismissalfailuretoserveprocessonallpartiesofrecord.InlightofthisCourtsdecisioninJACOv.   DepartmentofHealth,BureauofMedicaid,950S.W.2d350,353(Tenn.1997),theBoardhas  | abandonedthispositiononappeal.  G$   BXX  3    Tenn.CodeAnn.45101through45325(1998Repl.). P  G$   BXX  6    Totheextentinconsistentwithourdecisionhereinallpreviousappellatecourtdecisionsare ,  overruledincludingHRA,Inc.v.DepartmentofCommerce&Ins.,914S.W.2d512,51314(Tenn.App.   1995).WealsoexpresslydisapprovethedictastatementofthisCourtinJACOwhichcharacterized  | theresultinHRA,Inc.as clearlycorrect.JACO,950S.W.2dat353. &  G$   BXX  5    TheBoardsrelianceuponTenn.CodeAnn.6751511(b)(1998Repl.)ismisplaced.This ,  statutegovernsthescopeofevidenceadmissibleatachancerycourthearingonapetitionforjudicial   reviewofadecisionoftheBoard.Itdoesnotdelineatetheprocedurerequiredforobtainingjudicial  | reviewinchancerycourtinthefirstinstance.((3$ U!    < ifR'L U b"   _mXX   Ad FILEDXXm  August30,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAe  d##37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  ((3$ U!   $$$$)!dxdxabZc[C<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5((3$ U!   ($$   1  U!   _` 8XXdd8  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TK    =XXdd=x`[B2.jz`  `@E` 8ttxP( x_@ NmXX INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @)ATJACKSON#XXNm#   SCHERINGPLOUGHHEALTHCARE    ) @  FORPUBLICATION  V  PRODUCTS,INC.     8     ) @    B    0      8     ) @ Filed: August30,1999  ( x   Plaintiff/Appellee,   8     ) @    d    0      8     ) @ ShelbyChancery H!  J  v.  0      8     ) @    0    0      8     ) @ Hon.FloydPeete,   STATEBOARDOFEQUALIZATION,    ) @ Chancellor     0      8     )  0      8     ) @      H!  x  Defendant/Appellant. 8     ) @ AppealNo.   ^   0      8     ) @ 02S019810CH00096 D   0       Defendant/Appellant:   8     Plaintiff/Appellee  * z JohnKnoxWalkup     8     FredM.Ridolphi,Jr. !f AttorneyGeneral&Reporter 8     Humphreys,Dunlap,Wellford, !L    0      8     Acuff&Stanton,P.C.  0      8     Memphis,TennesseeMichaelE.MooreSolicitorGeneralMichaelW.CatalanoAssociateSolicitorGeneralNashville,Tennessee@  AmicusCuriaeShelbyCountyandShelbyCountyAssessor  ,(, @&DonnieE.Wilson@#ShelbyCountyAttorney@&RobertB.Rolwing@KK"AssistantCountyAttorneyV XX@.@VV( OPINION#XX V #  3L/3 AFFIRMED. 0      8      @     DROWOTA,J.  ,7|26 ,  ThiscasepresentsforreviewthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealswhichreversedtheChanceryCourtsdismissalofthepetitionofScheringPlough   HealthcareProducts,Inc.( ScheringPlough)whichsoughtjudicialreviewofa   decisionoftheStateBoardofEqualization( Board).TheChanceryCourtdismissed d thepetitionafterconcludingthatitlackedsubjectmatterjurisdictionovertheaction \0 becauseScheringPloughhadfailedtonameShelbyCountyasapartyinthepetition (  andhadfailedtoserveShelbyCountywithacopyofthepetitionwithinsixtydaysof   thefinaldecisionoftheBoard.TheCourtofAppealsreversedthedismissalandheld   thatTenn.CodeAnn.45322(b)(1998Repl.)doesnotrequirethatallpartiesto ` thecontestedcasebenamedinthepetitionforrevieworthatcopiesofthepetition X, beserveduponallpartiestothecontestedcasewithinthesixtydaytimelimitation. $ WeagreeandnowaffirmthedecisionoftheCourtofAppeals.   @) BACKGROUND  T#(  Thefactsrelevanttothelegalquestioninthisappealareundisputed.   #  1      ׀ ,% ScheringPloughownspropertylocatedinShelbyCounty.TheShelbyCountyBoard &  ofEqualizationpreparedataxassessmentoftheproperty.OnSeptember1,1994, (" ScheringPloughappealedtheassessment.OnOctober18,1994,followinga *d $ hearing,theadministrativelawjudgeissuedaninitialdecisionandorderaffirmingthe \,0"& assessment.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.6751505(1998Repl.).ScheringPlough (.#( appealedthisdecisiontotheAssessmentAppealsCommission( Commission), /%* whichissueditsfinaldecisionaffirmingtheassessmentonApril10,1995.SeeTenn. 1', _CodeAnn.6751506(1998Repl.).TheBoarddeclinedtoreviewthe ,  CommissionsdecisiononMay25,1995andtherebyrenderedtheactionofthe   Commissionfinal.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.6751502(j)(1)(1998Repl.).Itis   undisputedthatShelbyCountythroughitsAssessorsofficeparticipatedasaparty d inthecontestedcasebeforetheadministrativelawjudgeandtheCommission. \0  OnJuly21,1995,withinsixtydaysoftheagencysfinaldecision,Schering   PloughfiledintheShelbyCountyChanceryCourta PetitionforReviewoftheAction   oftheStateBoardofEqualization.OnSeptember25,1995,theBoardmovedto ` dismisstheactionbecauseScheringPloughhadnotnamedShelbyCountyasa X, partyinthepetitionandbecauseScheringPloughhadnotservedacopyofthe $ petitionuponShelbyCountywithinsixtydaysoftheagencysfinalorder.   Twodayslater,onSeptember27,1995,ScheringPloughmovedtoamendits !\ petitiontoaddaspartydefendantsShelbyCounty,theShelbyCountyAssessor,and T#( theShelbyCountyTrustee.Afterthesemotionswerefiled,ScheringPloughserved  % acopyofthepetitionupontheseadditionalparties.Thereafter,ShelbyCounty,the &  Assessor,andtheTrusteefiledajointmotiontoquashservice,orinthealternative, (" todismiss,relyinguponthesamegroundsallegedbytheBoard:failuretonameall *X $ partiestothecontestedcaseandfailuretoserveacopyofthepetitionuponall P,$"& partiestothecontestedcasewithinsixtydaysofthefinalorderoftheagency. .#(  Followingahearing,theChancellorgrantedtheBoardsmotiontodismiss, 1', stating ScheringPloughsfailuretonameShelbyCountyasadefendantandto 3T). serveupontheCounty...acopyofthePetitionrendersthisCourtwithoutsubject L5 +0 matterjurisdictionoverthisaction.  #  2      ׀TheCourtofAppealsreversedthedismissal ,  andheldthatScheringPloughhadproperlypreserveditsrighttojudicialreviewofthe   administrativedecisionsimplybyfilingitspetitionforreviewwiththeChanceryCourt   withinsixtydaysofthefinalagencydecision.RelyinguponthisCourtsdecisionin d JACOv.DepartmentofHealth,BureauofMedicaid,950S.W.2d350,353(Tenn. \0 1997),theCourtofAppealsalsoconcludedthatthesixtydaytimelimitationdoesnot (  applytothestatutoryprovisionwhichrequiresthatallpartiesofrecordbeservedwith   acopyofthepetition.Thereafter,thisCourtgrantedtheBoardsapplicationfor   permissiontoappealandnowaffirmsthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsforthe ` reasonsthatfollow. X, @,,# STATUTORYCONSTRUCTION   Inresolvingtheissuesinthisappeal,weareguidedbythefollowinggeneral !h rulesofstatutoryconstruction.TheroleofthisCourtinconstruingstatutesisto `#4 ascertainandgiveeffecttolegislativeintent.Croninv.Howe,906S.W.2d910,912 ,% (Tenn.1995).Legislativeintentistobeascertainedwheneverpossiblefromthe &  naturalandordinarymeaningofthelanguageused,withoutforcedorsubtle (" constructionthatwouldlimitorextendthemeaningofthelanguage.CarsonCreek *d $ VacationResorts,Inc.v.State,DeptofRevenue,865S.W.2d1,2(Tenn.1993).If \,0"& thelegislativeintentisexpressedinamannerdevoidofcontradictionandambiguity, (.#( thereisnoroomforinterpretationorconstructions,andcourtsarenotatlibertyto /%* departfromthewordsofthestatute.Id.Wherethelanguagecontainedwithinthe ,  fourcornersofastatuteisplain,clear,andunambiguous,thedutyofthecourtsis   simpleandobvious, tosaysiclexscripta,andobeyit.Id.,quotingMillerv.   Childress,21Tenn.(2Hum.)319,32122(1841).  d   Withtheseprinciplesinmind,wenextconsiderthestatutethatisthefocusof (  thisappeal.UndertheUniformAdministrativeProceduresAct(UAPA),  #  3      ׀aparty   aggrievedbyafinaldecisionofanadministrativeagencymayseekjudicialreviewof   thecontestedcase.Tenn.CodeAnn.45322(a)(1998Repl.).Theprocedurefor ` obtainingreviewisdelineatedinTenn.CodeAnn.45322(b)(1998Repl.),which X, provides,inpertinentpart: $ 8 (1)Proceedingsforreviewareinstitutedbyfilingapetitionforreview  inthechancerycourtofDavidsonCounty,unlessanothercourtis  specifiedbystatute. N  #  4      ׀Suchpetitionshallbefiledwithinsixty(60)days  aftertheentryoftheagencysfinalorderthereon.... v ! ! 8 (2)Inacaseinwhichapetitionforjudicialreviewissubmittedwithin n"B thesixtydayperiodbutisfiledwithaninappropriatecourt,thecase T#( shallbetransferredtotheappropriatecourt....Copiesofthepetition :$ shallbeservedupontheagencyandallpartiesofrecord,includingthe  % attorneygeneralandreporter,inaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthe & TennesseeRulesofCivilProcedurepertainingtoserviceofprocess. &  Ѐ  ! ! i/(Emphasisadded.)WeagreewiththeCourtofAppealsthattheplainlanguageof *X $ thisstatuteimposesonlytworequirementsuponapartyseekingjudicialreviewofa P,$"& contestedcase.First,thestatuterequiresanaggrievedpartytofileapetitionfor .#( reviewinanappropriatechancerycourtwithinsixtydaysafterentryoftheagencys ,  finalorder.Thesixtydaytimelimitationuponfilingofthepetitionisjurisdictional.   Bishopv.DepartmentofCorrection,896S.W.2d557(Tenn.App.1994)(perm.app.   deniedMarch20,1995).Thesecondrequirementofthestatuteisthatacopyofthe d petitionbeserved upontheagencyandallpartiesofrecord,includingtheattorney \0 generalandreporter,inaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheTennesseeRulesof (  CivilProcedurepertainingtoserviceofprocess.Tenn.CodeAnn.45322(b)   (1998Repl.).    ContrarytotheBoardsassertions,thesearetheonlytwoprocedural X, requirementsunderSection322forobtainingjudicialreviewofacontestedcase.  #  5      ׀ $ Nothinginthestatutemandatesthatthepetitionitselfnameallthepartiestothe  contestedcase.Solongasacopyofthepetitionisserveduponthe partiesof  recordtothecontestedcase,theunambiguousdictatesofthestatutearesatisfied. !\ Thoughwebaseourdecisionontheplainlanguageofthestatute,weagreewiththe T#( CourtofAppealsthatapetitionforreviewiscomparabletoanoticeofappeal.Aswe  % statedinJACO,apetitionforjudicialreviewisthecontinuationofanadministrative &  proceedinginmuchthesamewaythatanappealcanbecharacterizedasa (" continuationoftheunderlyingaction.Thepartiestothecontestedcasehave *X $ previouslybeendeterminedandare ofrecord.JACO,950S.W.2dat352.Asthe P,$"& CourtofAppealsnoted,failuretonameapartyinacaptionofanoticeofappealis .#( notareasonfordismissaloftheappeal.SeeTenn.R.App.P.3(f).Similarly,failure /%* tonameapartyinapetitionforjudicialreviewisnotgroundsfordismissalofthe ,  proceeding.    Moreover,werejecttheBoardsargumentthatdismissalisrequiredunlessa d copyofthepetitionforreviewisservedwithinsixtydaysafterentryofthefinal \0 agencyorder.Whilethestatuteclearlyrequiresthatthepetitionforreviewbefiled (  withinthesixtydaytimeperiod,thestatutedoesnotmandatethatserviceoccur   withinthatsametimeperiod.Thesixtydaylimitationappearsinthestatutory   subsectionrelatingtofilingnotserviceofthepetitionforreview.Infact,thestatute ` doesnotdesignateadefinitetimeperiodwithinwhichservicemustbeaccomplished. X, Itprovidesonlythatserviceofacopyofthepetitionbeaccomplishedinaccordance $ withtheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedurepertainingtoserviceofprocess.Aswe  statedinJACO,thisportionofthestatuterefersonlytothemethodandmeansof  servicesetforthintherules.JACO,950S.W.2dat353.Judiciallyapplyingthesixty !\ dayperiodtoserviceofthepetitionisnotappropriateinlightoftheplainlanguage T#( ofthestatute.  %  TheBoardsassertionsthatanaggrievedpartymustnameallthepartiesto (" thecontestedcaseinthepetitionforreviewandservethepetitionforreviewwithin *X $ thesixtydaytimeperiodsimplyarenotsupportedbytheplainlanguageofthe P,$"& statute.Aspreviouslystated,wherethelanguagecontainedwithinthefourcorners .#( ofastatuteisplain,clear,andunambiguous,courtsarenotatlibertytodepartfrom /%* thelanguageofthestatute.Judicialconstructionsimplyisnotappropriate.Carson 1', CreekVacationResorts,Inc.,865S.W.2dat2.Moreover,theBoardsproposed 3T). constructionisinconsistentwiththeGeneralAssemblysexpressedintentthatthe L5 +0 UAPAbe givenaliberalconstructionandanydoubtastotheexistenceortheextent ,  ofapowerconferredshallberesolvedinfavoroftheexistenceofthepower.Tenn.   CodeAnn.45103(1998Repl.).Theclearlanguageofthestatuteconfersupon   certainchancerycourtsthejurisdictionalpowertoconsiderpetitionsforreviewwhich d arefiledwithinsixtydaysafterentryofthefinalagencyorder.TheBoardsproposed \0 constructionwoulddivestachancerycourtofjurisdictioneventhoughanaggrieved (  partyhassatisfiedalltheexplicitstatutoryrequirementsforobtainingjudicialreview.   Wedeclinetoadoptsuchaconstruction.    Forthereasonsdiscussedabove,werejecttheBoardsproposedconstruction X, ofTenn.CodeAnn.45322(b)(1998Repl.).Theplainlanguageofthestatute $ doesnotrequireanaggrievedpartytonameallpartiesofrecordtothecontested  caseinthepetitionforjudicialreview,nordoesitrequireserviceofacopyofthe  petitionwithinthesixtydaytimeperiod.  #  6      ׀Theplainlanguageofthestatuterequires !\ onlythatapetitionforreviewbefiledwithinsixtydaysafterentryofthefinalagency T#( orderandthatacopyofthepetitionbeservedupontheagencyandallpartiesof   % K < ,   record,includingtheAttorneyGeneralandReporter,inaccordancewiththemethod <  andmannerprescribedbytheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedureforserviceof   process.   ̀@,,) CONCLUSION  8   Applyingtheseprinciplestothefactsofthiscase,itisclearthatSchering   Ploughhassatisfiedbothstatutoryrequisites.ScheringPloughspetitionforreview   wasfiledwithinthesixtydaytimelimitation.Thepartiesofrecordtothecontested l casehavebeenservedwithacopyofthepetition.Accordingly,thedecisionofthe t8 CourtofAppealsreversingtheChanceryCourtsdismissalisaffirmed. @   0      8 _____________________________________ p"4   0      8 FRANKF.DROWOTA,III, V#   0      8 JUSTICE <$  Concur: '"  Anderson,C.J. (# Birch,Holder,Barker,JJ.P