Harpeth Valley Utilities Dist. of Davidson and Williamson Counties v. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County - Concurring

Court of Appeals of Tennessee

Harpeth Valley Utilities Dist. of Davidson and Williamson Counties v. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County - Concurring

DecidedJuly 17, 2001

Docket01A01-9711-CH-00686

StatusPublished

This text of Harpeth Valley Utilities Dist. of Davidson and Williamson Counties v. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County - Concurring (Harpeth Valley Utilities Dist. of Davidson and Williamson Counties v. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County - Concurring) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harpeth Valley Utilities Dist. of Davidson and Williamson Counties v. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County - Concurring, (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE

HARPETH VALLEY UTILITIES ) DISTRICT OF DAVIDSON AND ) WILLIAMSON COUNTIES, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellant, ) ) VS. ) ) THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT ) OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON ) COUNTY, ) Davidson Chancery ) No. 97-2895-III Defendant/Appellee, ) ) Appeal No. ) 01A01-9711-CH-00686 RAY BELL, GLENDA BELL, WILLIAM ) COBLE, DR. ROY PARKER, JIMMY ) JONES, WESLEY BARNES, FANNIE C. ) BUCHANAN, KEITH VAUGHN, JOEL ) CHEEK, DANNY GRAVES, EDDIE ) GRAVES, JERRY GRAVES, ANNIE K. ) GRAVES, MACK LOVELL, WANDA ) LOVELL, JOE COLLIER, JIM FESMIRA, ) MAC KELL, THOMAS ROGERS, GENE ) ROGERS, and GEORGE ROGERS, ) ) Intervenors-Defendants/Appellees. )

CONCURRING OPINION

We concur with the results of the presiding judge’s opinion because we believe that the holding of Davidson County v. Harmon, 200 Tenn. 575, 292 S.W.2d 777 (1956) controls the outcome of this case. The Harpeth Valley Utility District has been operating since 1959 under the aegis of the Utilities Law of 1937 [Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 7-82-101, -804 (1992 & Supp. 1997)] providing water and sewerage disposal services to areas of Davidson, Williamson, and Cheatham Counties. As such, it is a governmental entity. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 7-82-301(a)(1) (Supp. 1997); First Suburban Util. Dist. v. McCanless, 177 Tenn. 128, 132-34, 146 S.W.2d 948, 950 (1941). Unless specifically provided otherwise, a city’s zoning power does not extend to state government instrumentalities located within its borders. See Davidson County v. Harmon, 200 Tenn. at 583-84, 292 S.W.2d at 780-81. While a state governmental entity could be enjoined from maintaining a nuisance on its property, see Davidson County v. Harmon, 200 Tenn. at 585, 292 S.W.2d at 781, there is no evidence in this record that Harpeth Valley’s proposed wastewater treatment plant on the Cumberland River, when constructed, will be a nuisance. To the contrary, the plans for the plant have already been approved by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation.

_____________________________ WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE

_____________________________ JERRY SMITH, SPECIAL JUDGE

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE

HARPETH VALLEY UTILITIES ) DISTRICT OF DAVIDSON AND ) WILLIAMSON COUNTIES, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellant, ) ) VS. ) ) THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT ) OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON ) COUNTY, ) Davidson Chancery ) No. 97-2895-III Defendant/Appellee, ) ) Appeal No. ) 01A01-9711-CH-00686 RAY BELL, GLENDA BELL, WILLIAM ) COBLE, DR. ROY PARKER, JIMMY ) JONES, WESLEY BARNES, FANNIE C. ) BUCHANAN, KEITH VAUGHN, JOEL ) CHEEK, DANNY GRAVES, EDDIE ) GRAVES, JERRY GRAVES, ANNIE K. ) GRAVES, MACK LOVELL, WANDA ) LOVELL, JOE COLLIER, JIM FESMIRA, ) MAC KELL, THOMAS ROGERS, GENE ) ROGERS, and GEORGE ROGERS, ) ) Intervenors-Defendants/Appellees. )

CONCURRING OPINION

We concur with the results of the presiding judge’s opinion because we believe that the holding of Davidson County v. Harmon, 200 Tenn. 575, 292 S.W.2d 777 (1956) controls the outcome of this case. The Harpeth Valley Utility District has been operating since 1959 under the aegis of the Utilities Law of 1937 [Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 7-82-101, -804 (1992 & Supp. 1997)] providing water and sewerage disposal services to areas of Davidson, Williamson, and Cheatham Counties. As such, it is a governmental entity. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 7-82-301(a)(1) (Supp. 1997); First Suburban Util. Dist. v. McCanless, 177 Tenn. 128, 132-34, 146 S.W.2d 948, 950 (1941). Unless specifically provided otherwise, a city’s zoning power does not extend to state government instrumentalities located within its borders. See Davidson County v. Harmon, 200 Tenn. at 583-84, 292 S.W.2d at 780-81. While a state governmental entity could be enjoined from maintaining a nuisance on its property, see Davidson County v. Harmon, 200 Tenn. at 585, 292 S.W.2d at 781, there is no evidence in this record that Harpeth Valley’s proposed wastewater treatment plant on the Cumberland River, when constructed, will be a nuisance. To the contrary, the plans for the plant have already been approved by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation.

_____________________________ WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE

_____________________________ JERRY SMITH, SPECIAL JUDGE

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Harpeth Valley Utilities Dist. of Davidson and Williamson Counties v. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County - Concurring, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harpeth-valley-utilities-dist-of-davidson-and-will-tennctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack