archive-edu.com » EDU » T » TENNESSEE.EDU

Total: 795

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Knowledgebase-Beer License for a Liquor Store
    law and what actions are required of the city to allow a package liquor store to commence the sale of beer as of July 1 2014 Original Author Broughton Jeff Co Author Ashburn Melissa Product Create Date 06 19 2014 Last Reviewed on 06 30 2014 Subject Beer Licenses and permits Beer Laws and regulations Alcoholic beverages Laws and regulations Type General Original Document Centerville Letter wine in grocery store

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/8db720fb547357c085257d0700435cf1?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Knowledgebase-Beer License Renewal
    beer in your City Your Beer Board has wide discretion in the issuance and revocation of a beer permit Section 57 5 104 Application fee Privilege tax Permits states that each applicant shall be required to pay an application fee of 250 00 to the City in which the applicant s place of business is located No portion of this fee shall be refunded There is also imposed on the business of selling distributing storing or manufacturing beer in this State a privilege tax of 100 00 The tax shall be remitted to the official identified by the City in the notice Cities shall mail written notice to each permit holder of the payment date of the annual tax at least thirty 30 days prior to January 1 to the address on the application for a beer license If a permit holder does not pay the tax by January 31 or within thirty 30 days after written notice was mailed whichever is later then the City shall notify the permit holder by certified mail that the tax payment is due If not paid with ten 10 days after receiving notice by certified mail then the City may suspend or revoke

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/7c2fa5a542c6de2485256b68006825ce?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Knowledgebase-Beer Permit
    to revoke the permit the revocation was not equitable in that case There are four related reasons why Sparks v Beer Committee of Blount County does not offer any protection to a prospective purchaser or purchaser of the beer establishment in your City First in that case the beer board revoked the beer permit of the current permit holder following the establishment of the church within the prohibited 2 000 feet In your situation the beer permit of the person who holds it is not in jeopardy It has regularly been held that no person has a property right in a beer permit Needham v Beer Board 647 S W 2d 226 Tenn 1983 The prospective purchaser of the beer establishment in your City does not even have a permit his claim to a permit is based on the ground that the person who owns the establishment has one Even paying Sparks v Beer Committee of Blount County its due it is difficult to see what equities would favor the prospective purchaser of the establishment He intends to buy an establishment he knows or should know is within 400 feet of a church In addition it was held in MAPCO Petroleum Inc v Basden 774 S W 2d 598 Tenn 1989 that a beer permit did not even pass to the survivor of merged corporations that the holder of the beer permit no longer existed and that the new entity had to apply for a beer permit Second even if any equities in your situation rebound to the prospective purchaser of the establishment the maxim Equity follows the law would apply to deny his relief Tennessee Code Annotated 57 5 109 strongly implies an intent on the part of the General Assembly to grandfather only those establishments in similar situations as of January 1 1993 That appears to be the law and where the law speaks equity cannot intervene on behalf of a person even when the equities are in his or her favor See Standard Grocery Co v National Fire Insurance Company 32 S W 2d 1023 1930 Pewitt v Pewitt 240 S W 2d 521 1951 Fletcher s Gin Inc v Critchfield 423 F 2d 1066 6th Cir 1970 Third in Sparks v Beer Committee of Blount County the Court reasoned that while the beer committee had the discretion to revoke Sparks beer permit the revocation under the facts of that case was an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of discretion At 26 However in the Smithville situation the beer board has no discretion to exercise Section 8 209 of the Municipal Code flatly prohibits the issuance of beer permits to establishments within 400 feet of a church The effect of the city s violation of Section 8 209 is detailed in the fourth reason below Fourth if the city issues the permit it will have put itself in a legally impossible position It is the law that where a municipality issues a beer permit in violation of its

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/ddad45787df6921085256be200507484?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Knowledgebase-Beer Permit Applicants and U. S. Citizenship
    Citizenship Summary MTAS was asked whether applicants for beer permits must be U S citizens Original Author Broughton Jeff Co Author Product Create Date 10 30 2013 Last Reviewed on 10 30 2013 Subject Beer Licenses and permits Licenses and

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/f8cc34d21b494d7f85257c14005b14b2?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Knowledgebase-Beer Permit Change of Ownership
    for a beer permit issued to two owners when one owner desires to be removed from the permit Original Author Broughton Jeff Co Author Ashburn Melissa Product Create Date 09 09 2014 Last Reviewed on 09 15 2014 Subject Beer

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/7c2390e3089d5e4c85257d54005450d2?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Knowledgebase-Beer Permit for a Grocery Store in a Shopping Center
    open air recreation In addition 10A Mc Quillen Municipal Corporations section 30 05 says A park may be described as a piece of ground in a city kept for ornament and recreation or as a tract of land set apart and maintained for public use and designed and landscaped so as to provide for pleasant scenery as well as an opportunity for open air recreation Those definitions seems to require that in order to qualify as a park the purpose of the property must be both to appeal to the eye and serve recreational purposes But what of the common practice of calling a baseball field a ball park Under that practice it is probably as logical to call a soccer complex a ball park However it is probably stretching the above legal definitions of park to denominate either a ballfield or soccer complex a park Standing alone they generally do not serve both an ornamental as well as a recreational purpose They may be in or a part of a park but their bare existence may not qualify them as a park otherwise every football baseball and soccer field and every tennis court etc anywhere would be a park Many such fields and courts are on the same grounds as a recreation center of some kind but even those facilities are not generally understood to be parks Apparently neither the soccer complex nor the piece of property upon which it sits was acquired by the county for ornament including as it does the jail and ambulance service While such facilities themselves can be attractive and are often found in governmental centers denominated as parks it would probably be stretching the meaning of that term to call a piece of property upon which such facilities sit a park within the meaning of the city s beer ordinance Johnson City v J E Cloninger 372 S W 2d 281 1963 confuses the issue over what can be a park There the question was whether the city could condemn property for a golf course under its power of eminent domain for a public park purposes In response to the plaintiff s argument that a golf course was not included within those purposes the Court reviewed the city s power to condemn property for parks playgrounds and recreational purposes and decided that The terms of T C A 11 902 clearly encompass a municipal golf course as acquired for said recreational purposes Even if the terms of this section were not clear it would be unreasonable to exclude a municipal golf course as a part of a park from the general term park purposes The word park is defined in Webster s Third New International Dictionary unabridged as a tract of land maintained by a city or town as a place of beauty or of public recreation A park is a pleasure ground for the recreation of the public to promote its health and enjoyment Booth v City of Minneapolis 163 Minn 223

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/aeac9c8017aee59c85256bf3004a7ea2?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Knowledgebase-Beer Permits for a City Festival
    was asked to provide sample temporary beer permits for a city festival in the downtown area Original Author Broughton Jeff Co Author Product Create Date 05 19 2015 Last Reviewed on 05 29 2015 Subject Beer Licenses and permits Type

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/0a5ba5b88b4d6de285257e54005edff8?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Knowledgebase-Beer Permits for Contiguous Serving Areas and Use of One Permit for Two Businesses
    to prevail in court In my opinion as this permit holder has not been charged or convicted for crimes associated with the sale of beer and the premises have not been a focal point of illegal activity the business owner would prevail if he sues the City for refusal to renew his permit There does not appear to be a public health and safety concern of such scope as would justify an action by the City to refuse to renew this business owner s permit If the City does change the ordinance to require a larger percentage of sales for food or which requires a separate cash register for each business in my opinion the City will lose any legal challenge made to such ordinance requirement and will be ordered by the court to issue the permit in any event 3 If the restaurant is closed to business can beer still be consumed on the premises in the bar area or patio per diagram Response If the restaurant is closed the convenient store may not sell beer for consumption on the premises However the owner or others may consume beer on the premises if they have not purchased it from the convenience store and are not customers The law governing consumption of beer on the premises addresses the transaction whereby the beer is sold to a customer and consumed at the location The convenience store operates an off premises beer business selling beer to be consumed off premises If the restaurant is closed customers should not be permitted to buy beer from the store and drink it on premises but the exact facts or circumstances of the situation make this a hard activity to prosecute It is legal for the store owner to allow people to drink beer on his premises when the restaurant is closed if they did not purchase that beer from his store This is an activity known as brown bagging and there is no state law prohibiting a business owner from allowing people to bring their own beer and drink on their premises It is viewed as a private property right issue not a commercial transaction So if the City can prove that persons drinking beer on the premises when the restaurant is closed bought the beer form the convenience store then it is a violation of the ordinance governing off premises sales by the store But if these persons bought the beer elsewhere such activity is not illegal or in violation of the beer ordinance The City may have the authority to pass an ordinance prohibiting brown bagging beer in restaurants that sell beer in which case this conduct may be in violation of that ordinance But I suspect the City has no such ordinance as they are rather rare Unless such an ordinance exists persons may bring their own beer to the premises and consume that beer when the restaurant is closed It is still a violation of the ordinance however for any person

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/be364ce048cfa28a85257886005bed4d?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive



  •