State ex rel. Amvets Post 27 v. Beer Bd. of City of Jellico
| Decision Date | 06 October 1986 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. AMVETS POST 27, et al., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. BEER BOARD OF the CITY OF JELLICO, Tennessee, Defendant/Appellee. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Michael G. Hatmaker, Jacksboro, for plaintiffs/appellants.
Terry M. Basista, Jacksboro, for defendant/appellee.
In this case the holder of a valid liquor-by-the-drink permit, issued pursuant to Chapter 4 of Title 57, Tennessee Code Annotated, challenges the authority of a municipal beer board to deny it a beer permit for on-premises consumption under Chapter 5 of the same title.
An ordinance of the City of Jellico authorizes only five beer permits within the city limits. That number was issued and outstanding when appellant made its application. For that reason the application was denied. The Chancellor held that the beer board had acted properly and denied a writ of mandamus sought by appellant. We affirm.
Appellant actually sought mandamus against the city beer board for its refusal to take action upon an application for a local permit. The application was filed on or about March 23, 1983, and no formal action had been taken by the city beer board when the present complaint was filed on October 4, 1985, more than two and one-half years later. Nevertheless it appears that from the outset appellant and its counsel were advised by appellee of the reason for its refusal to issue a permit or to hold a hearing, and the real issue between the parties was litigated and decided in the Chancery Court. Such facts as either party desired to adduce were apparently submitted by stipulation, and the matter was heard on its merits. While the beer board probably should have formally denied the application in reliance upon its ordinance and permitted review to proceed under T.C.A. § 57-5-109, subsections (d) et seq., no procedural irregularities appear to have affected the merits of the case.
The dispensation of alcoholic beverages by the drink in hotels and other establishments and subject to specified conditions was authorized by 1967 Tenn.Pub. Acts, Ch. 211. That statute has been amended many times since its original enactment.
As pertinent here, T.C.A. § 57-4-102 permits the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission to issue a license for on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages and beer to a "club." That term is defined in some detail in the statute, and the Commission is given authority by rules and regulations to make further definitions and to impose additional requirements upon applicants seeking a club license. In general such an applicant must be a nonprofit organization having at least 100 members regularly paying dues. There is no question that appellant has met all of the statutory requirements and the regulations of the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission.
In general "alcoholic beverages" and "beer" are separately defined and regulated in the numerous and detailed Tennessee statutes dealing with their manufacture, distribution and sale. Specifically for the purposes of Chapter 4 of Title 57 the term "alcoholic beverage" or "beverage" does not include beer with an alcoholic content of five percent or less by weight. See T.C.A. § 57-4-102(t). Beer and other malt beverages are defined in other statutes as being those having an alcoholic content of not more than five percent by weight, except wine. See T.C.A. § 57-6-102.
Pertinent to the present case is T.C.A. § 57-4-101(b) which provides:
"It shall further be lawful to sell wine and other alcoholic beverages as herein defined, and malt beverages as defined in § 57-6-102, to be consumed on the premises of any premiere type tourist resort or club as hereinafter defined, to guests of such resort and to members and guests of members of such clubs, subject to the further provisions of this chapter other than § 57-4-103." 1
It is clear from this provision that it is lawful to sell beer on the premises of a club such as appellant. Absent any other statutory provisions or regulations, no local beer permit or license would be required by the holder of a club license from the Alcoholic Beverage Commission. Part 2 of Chapter 4 of Title 57 provides that that Commission shall administer the provisions of the entire chapter, T.C.A. §§ 57-4-101 through 57-4-308. See T.C.A. § 57-4-201(a). The statutes contain detailed provisions for the applications to be made by clubs, including the submission of certificates of good moral character from city or county officials where the club is located. See generally T.C.A. § 57-4-201(c). There are provisions for review by the Commission of the arbitrary refusal of local officials to issue a certificate of good moral character. T.C.A. § 57-4-201(c)(2).
In its regulations concerning clubs and other liquor-by-the-drink establishments, the Alcoholic Beverage Commission makes reference to the sale of "malt beverages." It limits their use to sale for consumption on the premises only, with the container being opened by employees of the establishment for the customer being served. See Reg. 0100-1-.03(9). The regulations pertaining to applications for clubs refer to written approval of use and occupancy by local officials where applicable. Reg. 0100-1-.05(5)(b)8.
The application submitted by appellant to the Alcoholic Beverage Commission and the license issued by that body are not in the record before us. Neither has the Alcoholic Beverage Commission been made a party to the action.
Essentially it is the position of appellant that once a club or other permittee under Chapter 4 has been issued a license for on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages and beer by the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission, then local beer boards must automatically and routinely issue a local beer permit to the state licensee.
Appellant does not insist that a local license is unnecessary. Counsel for appellant has stated in his brief that wholesale beer distributors will not sell beer solely on the basis of a state license and that a local beer permit is required in order for a club such as appellant to purchase beer for sale to its customers. However, the point has not been developed either by evidence or by citation of applicable statute or regulations.
On October 7, 1975, the State Attorney General issued an opinion that a private club authorized to sell beverages by the drink under what is now Chapter 4 of Title 57 should also obtain a permit for the sale of beer from the local governing body where the club is situated, pursuant to statutes now codified as Chapter 5 of Title 57. Appellant does not appear to question that opinion. The fact that it and its counsel felt that a local permit was needed is inherent in their having filed the present complaint.
The statutes are detailed and complex, and they have been enacted piecemeal over the years...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. Beer Bd. for City of Dickson
...within their respective jurisdictions. The local governments have primary control over the sale of beer. State ex rel. Amvets Post 27 v. Beer Bd., 717 S.W.2d 878, 881 (Tenn.1986); Claiborne Country Club, Inc. v. City of Tazewell, 872 S.W.2d 685, 687 (Tenn.Ct.App.1993). Incorporated cities h......
-
McClain v. City of Millington, 00-02254
...of Dickson, supra, this Court stated: The local governments have primary control over the sale of beer. State ex rel. Amvets Post 27 v. Beer Bd., 717 S.W.2d 878, 881 (Tenn. 1986); Claiborne Country Club, Inc. v. City of Tazewell, 872 S.W.2d 685, 687 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993). Incorporated citie......
-
Wood v. Decatur Cnty. Tenn.
...Court has interpreted Tennessee Code Annotated Section 57-4-101 in a similar circumstance. In State ex rel. Amvets Post 27 v. Beer Bd. of City of Jellico, 717 S.W.2d 878 (Tenn. 1986), an owner of a club who had been issued an alcoholic beverage permit by the State sought review of the munic......
-
Price v. State
...101 S.Ct. 2599, 69 L.Ed.2d 357 (1981); McCanless v. State ex rel. Hamm, 181 Tenn. 308, 181 S.W.2d 154 (1944); State ex rel. Amvets Post 27 v. Beer Board, 717 S.W.2d 878 (Tenn.1986). The judgment of the trial court dismissing the complaint in this case is affirmed. Costs on this appeal are a......