Henry v. Blount County Beer Board

617 S.W.2d 888, 1981 Tenn. LEXIS 450
CourtTennessee Supreme Court
DecidedJune 29, 1981
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 617 S.W.2d 888 (Henry v. Blount County Beer Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Tennessee Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Henry v. Blount County Beer Board, 617 S.W.2d 888, 1981 Tenn. LEXIS 450 (Tenn. 1981).

Opinion

OPINION

COOPER, Justice.

Michael Henry and wife, Vera Henry, appeal from a judgment entered in the Circuit Court of Blount County denying them a permit for the sale of package beer at the Louisville Boat Dock and Club.

[889]*889The defendant beer board refused to issue a permit to the plaintiffs upon the ground that their premises were located within 2,000 feet of the Lakeshore Church of God.1 Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Circuit Court of Blount County, seeking a trial de novo, and a declaration that the “2,000 foot rule” had been invalidated by the action of the Blount County Beer Board in issuing permits for the sale of beer at retail to other applicants, whose premises were located less than 2,000 feet from a church, school or other place of public gathering.

In a series of hearings in the Circuit Court, plaintiffs introduced evidence showing that permits had been issued by the Blount County Beer Board to four businesses located within 2,000 feet of a church or school. On learning of these permits, the Blount County Beer Board revoked the permits, so that at the time of entry of the final judgment in the Circuit Court there were no retail beer outlets in Blount County in violation of the 2,000 foot rule. The trial judge then held that there was no discrimination in enforcement of the beer permit distance ordinance and dismissed plaintiffs’ petition for certiorari.

There is no question but that the discriminatory enforcement of the 2,000 foot rule, authorized by T.C.A. § 57-205, invalidates the rule. Rutherford County Beer Board v. Adams, 571 S.W.2d 830; City of Murfreesboro v. Davis, 569 S.W.2d 805 (Tenn.1978); Seay v. Knox County Quarterly Court, 541 S.W.2d 946 (Tenn.1976); Serv. U. Mart, Inc. v. Sullivan County, Tenn., 527 S.W.2d 805 (Tenn.1975). Once there has been discrimination in the enforcement of the beer permit distance ordinance, its validity can be restored only “by revocation or other elimination, such as attrition, of the discriminatorily-issued permits and licenses.” City of Murfreesboro v. Davis, 569 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Tenn.1978).

At the time of entry of judgment in this case, all discriminatorily-issued beer permits had been revoked and, consequently, the 2,000 foot rule was valid and in force in Blount County. The trial judge then acted correctly in dismissing plaintiffs’ petition for certiorari.

Judgment affirmed. Costs incident to the appeal are adjudged against Michael and Vera Henry, and their surety.

HARBISON, C. J., and FONES, BROCK and DROWOTA, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Oliver Randolph v. Coffee County Beer Bd.
Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 2001
Food Lion, Inc. v. Washington County Beer Board
700 S.W.2d 893 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1985)
Needham v. Beer Board of Blount County
647 S.W.2d 226 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
617 S.W.2d 888, 1981 Tenn. LEXIS 450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-v-blount-county-beer-board-tenn-1981.