Templeton v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County

• Decision Date: 18 February 1983
• Citation: 650 S.W.2d 743
• Parties: Everett TEMPLETON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, Tennessee, and the Secretary of State for the State of Tennessee, and the Comptroller for the State of Tennessee, and the Treasurer for the State of Tennessee, Defendants-Appellees. 650 S.W.2d 743
• Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals

Page 743

650 S.W.2d 743

Everett TEMPLETON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON

COUNTY, Tennessee, and the Secretary of State for the State

of Tennessee, and the Comptroller for the State of

Tennessee, and the Treasurer for the State of Tennessee,

Defendants-Appellees.

650 S.W.2d 743

Court of Appeals of Tennessee,

Middle Section.

Feb. 18, 1983.

Permission to Appeal Denied by

Supreme Court April 25, 1983.

Thomas B. Cresswell, Jr., Boult, Cummings, Conners & Berry, Nashville, for plaintiff-appellant.

J.P. Apel, Deputy Director of Law, John C. Zimmerman and Jennifer Helton Small, Asst. Attys. Gen., Nashville, for defendants-appellees; William M. Leech, Jr., Atty. Gen. and Reporter, Nashville, of counsel.

OPINION

CONNER, Judge.

This case represents a frontal assault on the validity of state statutes and an ordinance of The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (Metro) prohibiting the sale at retail of packaged liquor in its "general services district." The suit was engendered by and is a natural consequence of the holdings by our supreme court in City of Chattanooga v. Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission, 525 S.W.2d 470 (Tenn.1975), and Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County v. Shacklett, 554 S.W.2d 601 (Tenn.1977). The ultimate effect of these prior suits is to mandate that where by local option the sale of packaged liquor has been approved, any municipal restriction of such sale permitted by the legislature must be reasonable and serve some legitimate purpose within the scope of the police power. This concept of reasonableness has been codified in T.C.A. Sec. 57-3-208(c), infra, enacted subsequent to these decisions.

On October 31, 1980, plaintiff-appellant, Everett Templeton, ¹ filed suit challenging the denial by Metro of a certificate of compliance under T.C.A. Sec. 57-3-208. ² The action was brought under T.C.A. Sec. 57-3-208(d), supra. In addition to the contention that the denial of the certificate of compliance was unreasonable, Mr. Templeton challenged the failure of the Secretary of State, the Comptroller and the Treasurer for the State of Tennessee (hereinafter "state officers") to appoint a commission under T.C.A. Sec. 57-3-108 ³ to determine whether a retail liquor license should issue.

Plaintiff also challenged the state's interpretation of and the constitutionality of T.C.A. Sec. 57-3-205 ⁴ as well as the constitutionality of a Metro Ordinance, Metro Code Sec. 5-2-3(1) (1977). ⁵

After certain stipulations of fact were filed, the matter was tried non-jury on March 31, 1982. The chancellor determined that all statutes and the ordinance under attack were constitutional, the governmental interpretations were correct and the action of Metro was reasonable. Accordingly, the lawsuit was dismissed and plaintiff appealed.

The litigants stipulated in part as follows:

1. The Plaintiff Everett Templeton is a resident of Davidson County, Tennessee.

2. The Defendant ... Metro is the municipal governmental authority for the locality in which the Plaintiff resides.

3. Defendant[s] Secretary of State ... Comptroller ... and Treasurer ... are parties to this suit in their official capacity as officers of the State of Tennessee....

4. Plaintiff currently is licensed to engage in retail liquor sales under the authority of Metro and the Alcoholic Beverage Commission of the State of Tennessee (herein "ABC"). The Plaintiff has been licensed to sell liquor at retail at locations in Metro for some eighteen (18) years and has never been denied a renewal of his license, nor has he ever received an unfavorable Inspection Report by an inspector of the ABC.

5. The plaintiff currently operates a retail liquor establishment under the name of Temp's Liquor Store at 1818 Church Street in Nashville.... On or about April 12, 1979, Plaintiff filed an application with the ABC for a transfer of the liquor license currently held by Plaintiff ... to a proposed site for establishment of a liquor store at 7124 U.S. Highway 70 South in Davidson County, Tennessee.

6. On April 13, 1979, an officer of the ABC inspected the proposed location and filed a favorable Inspection Report of the proposed retail store location.... The Report contains the following information: the location has a principal access to an existing major street; it is within a major commercial development of ten acres or more; it meets the other requirements of Metro, including the requisite distance from private residences, public libraries, churches, schoolyards, and other retailers, and the area is zoned for commercial development.

7. The Plaintiff is of good moral character within the meaning of T.C.A. Sec. 57-3-208(b)(1)....

8. Because the application for transfer involves merely a transfer of the license, and not an application for a new license, Plaintiff's application would not affect the suggested license to population ratio of 1:5500.

9. The plaintiff has complied with the applicable ordinances of Metro which regulate the number of retail licenses to be issued within the jurisdiction. The proposed location of a new liquor store by Plaintiff ... meets the requirements of Metro Code Section 5-2-3(2) (1977), which requires that the proposed location for a liquor store is on or has its principal access to an existing major street or road as shown on the major street plan as adopted by the Metropolitan Planning Commission. Highway 70 South in Nashville is such a street.

10. The proposed location for a new retail liquor establishment ... meets the requirements of Metropolitan Code Section 5-2-3(3) (1977), which requires that the proposed location be within a major commercial concentration having a land area of ten (10) or more contiguous commercially developed acres.

* * *

11. Of the establishments ... [contiguous to the proposed location] the following sell alcoholic beverages or beer:

Cheers--licensed ... to sell liquor by the drink;

Kroger--licensed ... to sell beer;

Mr. Gatti's Pizza--licensed ... to sell beer;

Wiggin's Drive-In Market--licensed ... to sell beer;

Gulf/Grand Ole Market--licensed ... to sell beer;

Fine Foods by George--licensed ... to sell beer.

12. The proposed location of the new retail liquor establishment ... is in the General Services District of Metro. Metropolitan Code Section 5-2-3(1) (1977), requires locations for retail liquor stores to be situated within the Urban Services District of Metro.

13. The proposed location for the new retail liquor establishment store is almost two (2) miles from the nearest liquor store, the West Meade Wine and Liquor Mart.

14. The proposed location is within three (3) miles of the closest fire station....

15. The proposed location is within a neighborhood that is regularly patrolled by Metro Police and Bellevue Patrol.

16. The proposed location is located in the neighborhood known as Bellevue, an area which has an estimated population of 19,392 as of 1980, according to the Metro Planning Commission. The population of Bellevue is expected to increase over the next two decades; the Planning Commission has estimated that the area will have a population of 22,890 by 1990 and 26,750 by the year 2000.

17. The Metro General Services District is a "civil district" as that term is utilized in T.C.A. Sec. 57-3-205(a) and has a population in excess of 30,000 persons.

18. The Urban Services District of Davidson County has a population of over 30,000 persons according to the 1980 federal census.

19. Within the General Services District of Davidson County and outside the Urban Services District of Davidson County, there are six incorporated municipalities, those being (1) Belle Meade, population ... 3,182, incorporated in 1938, (2) Berry Hill, population 1,113, incorporated in 1950, (3) Goodlettsville, population 8,327, incorporated in 1958, (4) Lakewood, population 2,325, incorporated in 1959, (5) Oak Hill, population 4,609, incorporated in 1952, (6) Forrest Hills, population 4,516, incorporated in 1957....

20. The Secretary of State, the Comptroller, and the Treasurer of the State of Tennessee have not appointed a commission for the Metro General Services District within the meaning of T.C.A. Sec. 57-3-108....

21. On September 5, 1980, Plaintiff's attorney received notice from J. Pat Apel, Deputy Director of Law, Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, that the certificate required by T.C.A. Sec. 57-3-208(2) was denied because the proposed location for the new retail liquor establishment is without the Metro Urban Services District....

22. Defendants are not aware of any reasons, other than the proposed location being situated in the Metro General Services District, why the Plaintiff's application for transfer should not be granted.

Beyond the stipulation, Mr. Templeton testified that during twenty years in the liquor business he had operated two different retail liquor stores and had never been denied a license, or received an unfavorable report. He sought transfer of a license from Temp's Liquor Store on Church Street to Highway 70 in Bellevue because of existing competition there and his belief that he would have a better economic situation in Bellevue. Mr. Templeton had a building and lease commitment in the proposed location.

Mr. William M. Hobbs, Jr., administrative assistant to Metro Mayor Richard Fulton, testified that his responsibilities included review of applications for certificates of compliance for liquor licenses. He acknowledged that the only obstacle preventing Mr. Templeton from obtaining the requested permit was that the proposed location is outside of the urban services district. Mr. Hobbs testified the urban services district was not drawn for the purpose of alcohol licensing nor did it have anything to do with licensing until the prior segregated zone was declared too restrictive. See Metro v. Shacklett, supra.

Mr. Hobbs testified that there are no...