Petition for Writ of Certiorari — City of Chattanooga, Tennessee, City Council, Petitioner v. Rama, Inc., dba Discount Liquor

NO.__________

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

CITY OF CHATTANOOGA,

TENNESSEE, CITY COUNCIL,

Petitioner,

v.

RAMA, INC., D/B/A DISCOUNT LIQUOR,

Respondent.

__________________________

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the

Tennessee Court of Appeals at Knoxville

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Phillip A. Noblett

Counsel of Record

CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

100 E. 11th Street, Suite 200

Chattanooga, TN 37402

(423) 643-8250

pnoblett@chattanooga.gov

June 3, 2024

SUPREME COURT PRESS

Counsel for Petitioner

♦

(888) 958-5705

♦

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

i

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the action of the Tennessee Court of

Appeals ordering a legislative body performing an

administrative function violated separation of powers

when it directed the City Council to approve the

issuance of an alcohol license for this retail liquor

store contrary to the Separation of Powers Clause of

the United States Constitution?

ii

LIST OF PROCEEDINGS

Tennessee Supreme Court

No. E2022-01506-COA-R3-CV

Rama, Inc. dba Discount Liquor v. City of Chattanooga,

Tennessee, City Council

Petition for Review Denied: March 6, 2024

_________________

Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville

No. E2022-01506-COA-R3-CV

Rama, Inc. dba Discount Liquor v. City of Chattanooga,

Tennessee, City Council

Opinion: October 6, 2023

_________________

Chancery Court for the Eleventh Circuit Judicial

District of Tennessee

No. 22-0146

Rama, Inc. dba Discount Liquor v. City of Chattanooga,

Tennessee, City Council

Final Order: September 26, 2022

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

QUESTION PRESENTED .......................................... i

LIST OF PROCEEDINGS .......................................... ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... v

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ............. 1

OPINIONS BELOW ................................................... 1

JURISDICTION.......................................................... 2

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND

STATUTES INVOLVED ...................................... 3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................... 3

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ................................. 6

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ......... 9

I.

WHETHER A COURT ORDERING A LEGISLATIVE

BODY PERFORMING AN ADMINISTRATIVE

FUNCTION TO ISSUE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION

PERMIT VIOLATES THE SEPARATION OF

POWERS CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES

CONSTITUTION ................................................. 10

CONCLUSION.......................................................... 17

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued

Page

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS AND ORDERS

Order Denying Application for Permission to

Appeal, Supreme Court of Tennessee

(March 6, 2024)................................................... 1a

Opinion Reversing and Directing Approval of

License, Court of Appeals of Tennessee

(October 6, 2023) ................................................ 2a

Order Denying Petition for Writ of Certiorari,

Chancery Court for the Eleventh Judicial

District of Tennessee (September 26, 2022) .... 19a

OTHER DOCUMENTS

Chattanooga City Council Denial of Rama, Inc.

Permit, Council Meeting Minutes

(January 18, 2022)............................................ 33a

v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Brinkmann v. Town of Southold,

96 F.4th 209 (2d Cir. 2024) ......................... 11, 12

Haw. Hous. Auth. v. Midkiff,

467 U.S. 229, 104 S. Ct. 2321 (1984) ................ 11

Keeton v. Gatlinburg,

684 S.W. 2d 97 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984) .............. 15

Kelo v. City of New London,

545 U.S. 469, 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005) ................ 14

Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.,

544 U.S. 528 (2005) ........................................... 14

Patchak v. Zinke,

583 U.S. 244 (2018) ........................................... 10

Pearson v. Grand Blanc,

961 F.2d 1211 (6th Cir. 1992) ........................... 11

State ex rel. Howell v. Farris,

562 S.W.3d 432 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018) ............. 15

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

U.S. Const. amend. XIV ............................................ 11

U.S. Const. Art. I, § 1.................................................. 3

U.S. Const. Art. II, § 1, Cl 1........................................ 3

vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued

Page

STATUTES

28 U.S.C. § 1257(a) ..................................................... 2

Chattanooga City Code § 5-108 ................................ 16

Chattanooga City Code § 5-126 ................................ 13

Chattanooga City Code §§ 5-101 through 5-126 ...... 12

Chattanooga City Code § 38-185 .......................... 6, 12

Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-7-201 ..................................... 14

Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-9-101 ....................................... 3

Tenn. Code Ann. § 57-3-208 ............................... 12, 13

Tenn. Code Ann. § 57-3-212 ....................................... 6

JUDICIAL RULES

Sup. Ct. R. 10 .............................................................. 9

Sup. Ct. R. 13 .............................................................. 2

Sup. Ct. R. 15 .............................................................. 5

1

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

The City of Chattanooga respectfully requests

that this Court issue a writ of certiorari to review the

decision of the Tennessee Court of Appeals at Knoxville

after the Tennessee Supreme Court has failed to grant

permission to appeal to that Court due to the importance

of the separation of powers issue in this municipal

zoning and land use case involving the sale of alcohol.

OPINIONS BELOW

The memorandum opinion of the Hamilton County

Chancery Court for case No. 22-0146, Rama, Inc.

d/b/a, Discount Liquor v. City of Chattanooga Tennessee

City Council, was filed on September 26, 2022 (App.19a),

dismissing Petitioner’s Writ of Certiorari with prejudice

at the trial court level and affirmed the action of the

Chattanooga City Council in the denial of a special

exceptions liquor permit at this location. (App.33a).

The Trial Court held there was a voluntary discontinuance of the liquor license by the previous owner

because the prior owner’s license expired in September

of 2021 and the alcohol license was not voluntarily

renewed by the deadline in November 2021.

On October 6, 2023, the Tennessee Court of Appeals

in Case No. E2022-01506-COA-R3-CV Rama, Inc d/b/a

Discount Liquor v. City of Chattanooga, Tennessee, City

Council issued an opinion that reversed the decision

of the trial court and it was remanded back to the trial

court for entry of an order consistent with the opinion

2

of the Court of Appeals. (App.2a). The Court held that

because Rama met all of the conditions and provisions

set forth in the code, the City Council’s denial of the

application was illegal, arbitrary, and/or capricious. The

Court of Appeals ordered the City Council to approve

the issuance of an alcohol license for this retail liquor

store.

The City of Chattanooga filed an application for

permission to appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court

on December 5, 2023, asserting that the action of the

Tennessee Court of Appeals violated separation of

powers on the issue of directing the City Council to

approve the issuance of an alcohol license for this retail

liquor store. On March 6, 2024, the Tennessee Supreme

Court denied the City’s application for permission to

appeal to the State Supreme Court. (App.1a).

JURISDICTION

The petitioner, The City of Chattanooga City

Council, is filing a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to

this Court seeking review of a final judgment in the

Tennessee Court of Appeals after the denial of an

application for a Writ of Certiorari to the Tennessee

Supreme Court, which was entered on March 6, 2024.

(App.1a). Supreme Court Rule 13 provides that such

a petition may be filed to review judgment in any case,

civil or criminal, entered by a United States Court of

Appeals within ninety (90) days after entry of the

judgment by the Tennessee Supreme Court. This

Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a).

3

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND

STATUTES INVOLVED

The Respondent originally brought its claim in

the Chancery Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee

under Tenn. Code Annotated § 27-9-101, et. seq. which

was denied by the Trial Court and reversed by the

Tennessee Court of Appeals. Petitioner is appealing to

the United States Supreme Court pursuant to the

United States Constitution Art. I § 1; Art. II§ 1 Cl 1

on behalf of the Chattanooga City Council.

Tenn. Code Annotated § 27-9-101

Anyone who may be aggrieved by any final order

or judgment of any board or commission functioning under the laws of this state may have the

order or judgment reviewed by the courts, where

not otherwise specifically provided, in the manner

provided by this chapter.

See also United States Constitution Art. I § 1, Art.

II § 1. cl. 1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The original Petition for a Writ of Certiorari was

filed by Respondent, Rama Inc. on February 28, 2022,

pursuant to Tenn. Code Annotated § 27-9-101 et.seq

which provides a right of review from any final order

or judgment of any board or commission functioning

under the laws of the state of Tennessee. The Writ was

initiated against the City Council of the City of Chat-

4

tanooga for the denial of a special exception permit for

the operation of a liquor store located within the City

limits of Chattanooga. The Respondent asserted that

the denial of the special exceptions permit for the

liquor store by the Chattanooga City Council was illegal,

arbitrary, and capricious and there was no evidence to

justify the decision. The City filed a response to the

Writ of Certiorari on March 31, 2022, which included

the transcript of the proceedings before the City Council

and denied that the City made any illegal, arbitrary or

capricious decision. The City asserted that the Council’s

decision was supported by evidence in the record.

A Memorandum Opinion was issued by the

Hamilton County Chancery Court on September 26,

2022, dismissing the Writ of Certiorari with prejudice.

In the opinion, the trial court concluded that the City

Council was performing an administrative function,

rather than a legislative one, by denying the Special

Exceptions Permit. The Court held that Rama was

seeking its initial special exceptions permit to begin

operating a liquor store and that the discontinuance

of the prior operator at this location was voluntary.

The Trial Court further held that the City did not

exceed its jurisdiction nor did it act fraudulently or

arbitrarily based on the record when it denied Rama

the Special Exceptions permit.

Rama appealed the decision of the Trial court to

the Tennessee Court of Appeals and on October 6,

2023, the Court of Appeals rendered an opinion ‘that

the judgment of the Trial court is reversed and

remanded for entry of an order that directs the City

Council to approve Rama’s Corporate Application for

Certificate for Liquor License.” On appeal, Rama

raised two issues: first, whether the Chancery Court

5

erred in holding that the decision of the Chattanooga

City Council to deny a Special Exceptions Permit to

Rama was not arbitrary or capricious or the result of

some ulterior motive, and/or that the Chattanooga City

Council acted without material evidence to support its

decision. The second issue was whether Rama had a

vested interest in the Special Exceptions Permit based

upon the City of Chattanooga approving the Special

Exceptions Permit for a period of approximately forty

(40) years.

The Tennessee Court of Appeals held that Rama

met all the relevant conditions and provisions set forth

in the Chattanooga City Code and that it was arbitrary for the City Council in considering the issuance

of a Special Permit to decide that liquor stores were

unsuitable for this location, when they have been

previously allowed in the past. The Court of Appeals

ordered the Chancery Court to enter an order directing

the City Council to approve Rama’s Corporate Application for Certificate for Liquor License.

The City Council next filed for permission to

appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court, and on March

6, 2024, the Court denied that application without

further explanation. This Petition for Writ of Certiorari

is filed with this Court on June 3, 2024, and is timely

filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 15.

6

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Discount Liquors (“Rama”) is the name of a

business located at 7703 Lee Highway in the City of

Chattanooga. This property is zoned C2 – Convenience

Commercial Zone by the Chattanooga City Council.

Under this zoning designation, Chattanooga City Code

Section 38-185 any change in ownership requires

liquor stores to obtain a Special Exceptions Permit from

the Chattanooga City Council that establishes that

the liquor store is properly located from certain uses,

that the applicant has no criminal background that

would prohibit alcohol sales, and that the distance of

the liquor store complies with the zoning distances

required in the City Code at the time of the application.

Discount Liquors was a liquor store that previously

operated in Chattanooga, Tennessee for a number of

years before a change in ownership in 2018. During the

majority of this time, Jai Shiva, Inc. previously owned

the business and obtained a Special Exceptions Permit

from the City Council to operate at that location. Jai

Shiva Inc. was later purchased by Ms. Mittakumari

Patel in 2018. Ms. Patel assumed the loans against

the property and made a down payment of $250,000

and entered a deed of trust of $680,000 to this effect.

At the time of assuming the new purchase loan in 2018,

Ms. Patel did not obtain a liquor license. Instead, this

business operated under the new name of Rama and

continued to operate under Jai Shiva, Inc’s permit in

violation of Tennessee state law for more than three

years. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 57-3-212.

7

On November 8, 2021, the Tennessee Alcohol

Beverage Commission revoked Discount Liquors’ state

alcohol license because the business had not renewed

its liquor license. The revocation of the City liquor permit

was also effective that same day. There was conflicting

testimony at trial that Rama purchased the liquor store

and the property two days later, on November 10, 2021.

The trial court did not find Mr. Patel’s testimony on

this issue to be persuasive.

On December 1, 2021, Rama submitted its

application for a Special Exceptions Permit to the City

Council, almost one (1) month after the Tennessee

Alcohol Beverage Commission previously revoked

Discount Liquors’ alcohol license. On January 18, 2022,

after a presentation by Karen Rennich, Deputy Director

of Planning for the City of Chattanooga and a discussion

with Ms. Patel, representing Rama, Inc., the City

Council unanimously voted to deny the permit to

Rama. During the discussion about Rama’s application,

the City Council made it clear that it was attempting

to “turn this area around.”

The record establishes that the City Council has

authorized the purchase of housing for low-and

moderate-income residents at the former Airport Inn

located at 7725 Lee Highway. The City Council’s

purchase, on October 26, 2021, of the hotel located at

7725 Lee Highway was born out of its desire to

improve this area of Chattanooga and provide a safe

environment for persons getting out of poverty. Council

members discussed this matter in a public meeting

and indicated that by making the former hotel location

a supportive house for those struggling with housing

insecurity, the City was demonstrating its intent to

“turn this area around.” Councilwoman Berz clearly

8

stated to a representative of Rama, Inc., during the

Special Permit consideration as follows: “As you know,

the City is turning that area around to meet some

different purposes and there been a consortium meeting

with the Silverdale Church, the other church. . . . Let

me tell you I’ve been contacted by the motel owner

facing your store to the left of you, plus people from

other districts that are working hard to turn this area

around.”

Rama never operated Discount Liquors in this

location, in part because it never received a Special

Exceptions Permit for this location. Based upon these

facts, the City has asserted that the City Council’s

denial was within its discretion and the Chancellor’s

dismissal of the Appellant’s Writ of Certiorari was

proper.

9

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

This Court should grant the Petition based upon

Supreme Court Rule 10, which sets forth considerations governing review on a Writ of Certiorari. Supreme

Court Rule 10 specifically provides that a petition for

writ of certiorari may be granted for compelling

reasons and that the reasons given by the Tennessee

Court of Appeals reversing the actions of the Trial

Court and the City Council in the denial of this Special

Exceptions Permit for a liquor store are neither

controlling nor fully measuring the Court’s discretion.

The listed reasons for this Court to consider in granting

this application for Writ of Certiorari include if the

decision:

(1) conflicts with the decision of another United

States Court of Appeals;

(2) decides an important federal question in a

way that conflicts with the decision by a

state court of last resort;

(3) so far departs from the accepted and usual

course of judicial proceedings to justify an

exercise of this Court’s supervisory power;

(4) decides an important question of federal law

previously undecided by the Court; or,

(5) conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.

There are at least two (2) reasons why this Writ

of Certiorari applied for by the City of Chattanooga

should be granted. First, the decision of the Tennessee

Court of Appeals so far departs from the accepted and

usual course of judicial proceedings to justify an

10

exercise of this Court’s supervisory power. Second, the

decision of the Tennessee Court of Appeals conflicts

with relevant decisions of this Court.

I.

WHETHER A COURT ORDERING A LEGISLATIVE

BODY PERFORMING AN ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION TO ISSUE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT

VIOLATES THE SEPARATION OF POWERS CLAUSE OF

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

One of the fundamental building blocks of our

nation’s government is the separation of powers

doctrine. It is the first thing that many people learn

about our nation’s system of government-that there

are three branches of government: the legislative

branch, the executive branch, and the judiciary branch.

This Court has stated: “To the legislative department

has been committed the duty of making laws; to the

executive, the duty of executing them; and to the

judiciary the duty of interpreting and applying them

in cases properly brought before the courts.” Patchak

v. Zinke, 583 U.S. 244, 249 (2018).

The Tennessee Court of Appeals decision to reverse

the trial court’s affirmation of the Chattanooga City

Council’s decision to deny Rama the Special Exception

Permit to operate a liquor store at this location was in

error. The Court of Appeals failed to consider the lack

of credibility of the witness, Mr. Mayuresh (Michael)

Patel. More importantly, Mr. Patel admitted to violating

Tennessee state law by operating under another entity’s

liquor license for over two (2) years before even

attempting to obtain a license under Rama’s name.

The Trial Court was correct in its finding that Rama

had notice and an opportunity to be heard by the City

on its application and that the constitutional require-

11

ments of due process had been met when the City denied

the Special Exceptions Permit under its Ordinance.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated

“The doctrine that governmental deprivations of life,

liberty or property are subject to limitations regardless of the adequacy of the procedures employed has

come to be known as substantive due process.” Pearson

v. Grand Blanc, 961 F.2d 1211, 1216 (6th Cir. 1992).

The Court goes on to further state that “[t]he right not

to be subject to arbitrary or capricious action by a

state either by legislative or administrative action is

commonly referred to as a substantive due process right.”

Id. at 1217. Additionally, the Fourteenth Amendment

substantive due process requires that both legislative

and administrative actions that deprive the citizen of

‘life liberty or property must have some rational basis.”

Id. at 1223.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has stated:

Subject to specific constitutional limitations,

when the legislature has decided that something is a public use, the public interest has

been declared in terms well-nigh conclusive.

Accordingly, In such cases, it is the legislature,

not the judiciary is the main guardian of the

public needs to be served by social legislation,

whether it be Congress legislating concerning

the district of Columbia . . . or the States

legislating local affairs . . . This principle

admits of no exception merely because the

power of eminent domain is involved.

Brinkmann v. Town of Southold, 96 F.4th 209 (2d Cir.

2024) (Citing Haw. Hous. Auth. v. Midkiff, 467 U.S.

229, 104 S. Ct. 2321 (1984). Although Brinkmann is an

12

eminent domain case, the same principle applies in

the case at bar. The City Council is the legislative arm

of City government and it has implemented ordinances

governing the sale of liquor for the public welfare. The

record shows that the City also previously purchased

a property near the location sought by Rama to

alleviate a public concern, which was supportive housing

for the housing insecure. In addition, the Chattanooga

City Code section 38-185 states:

The following uses may be permitted as

special exceptions by the City Council a

authorized by Tennessee Code Annotated

57-3-208 and Chattanooga City Code, part II

Sections 5-101 through 5-126:

(a) Liquor Stores . . .

(b) Wineries, including vineyards, processing,

bottling and sales facilities; and

(c)

Alcohol Distillery, Small to the C-2 Convenience Commercial Zone.

The language of the ordinance is clear with the

words “may be permitted . . . ” -that the City Council

has the discretion to grant or deny a special exceptions

permit. The Tennessee Court of Appeals erred in

holding that a special exceptions permit is a misnomer

and requiring the legislative body to issue a liquor

store permit for this location which had already been

revoked by the Tennessee Alcohol Beverage Commission

at the time this permit was considered by the City

Council. Essentially, the case law relied upon by the

Court of Appeals places an extraordinary burden upon

municipalities to prove that a particular establishment

or business may prove harmful to a neighborhood or

13

district located within the boundaries of that municipality.

The City is authorized by state statute, Tenn.

Code Ann. § 57-3-208 to limit the number of liquor stores

within the municipality. This statute also requires as

a condition precedent to the issuance of a liquor license

that a certificate signed by the county mayor, chair of

the county commission, city council, or legislative

body of the municipality the potential liquor store is

located in certifying that the applicant has not been

convicted of a felony within the last ten years, that the

applicant has secured a location that “complies with

all restrictions of any local law, ordinance, or resolution,

duly adopted by the local jurisdiction as to the location

of the business,” and that the applicant has complied

with the local laws, ordinances, or resolutions regulating

the number of retail licenses allowed in the jurisdiction.

See Tenn. Code Ann. § 57-3-208. Pursuant to the Tennessee state statute, the City limited the number of liquor

stores allowed in City Code Section 5-126.

In its opinion, while citing another case, the

Tennessee Court of Appeals stated: “Metro Council made

its decision solely upon the concerns of the residents,

instead of upon the factors and criteria set forth in the

city code, as it was required to do.” Rama, Inc. v. City

of Chattanooga, No. E2022-01506-COA-R3-CV, 2023

Tenn. App. LEXIS 417 (Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2023). This

line of reasoning is in direct contradiction with case

law concerning both substantive due process and

separation of powers. As previously referenced herein,

the Tennessee Court of Appeals held that since Rama

complied with all of the relevant conditions and provisions of the City Code, it was entitled to have its

application approved. Owning a liquor store within

14

the City limits is a privilege, not a right under existing

Tennessee law. Additionally, at the hearing on Rama’s

Writ of Certiorari, it was discovered that this liquor

store was operating illegally for over two (2) years

prior to their application for the Special Exceptions

Permit from the City Council.

This Court also stated, “the legislature, not the

judiciary, is the main guardian of the public needs to

be served.” Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469,

499, 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005) (citing Lingle v. Chevron

U.S.A., Inc. 544 U.S. 528 (2005). This Court further set

forth:

[b]ecause courts are ill equipped to evaluate

the efficacy of proposed legislative initiatives, we rejected as unworkable the idea of

courts’ deciding on what is and is not a

governmental function and invalidating

legislation on the basis of their view on that

question at the moment of decision, a practice

which has proved impracticable in other

fields.

Id.

According to Tennessee state law, municipalities

are granted the power to enact zoning ordinances for

the “purpose of promoting the public health, safety,

morals, convenience, order, prosperity, and general

welfare” of the residents of the municipality. Tenn.

Code Ann. § 13-7-201. Additionally, the Tennessee

Court of Appeals has held,

[w]here a municipal governing body acts under

its delegated police powers in zoning matters,

judicial review of such action is restricted

by constitutional limitations. The reviewing

15

court’s inquiry is limited as to whether any

rational basis exists for the legislative action

and, if the issue is fairly debatable, it must

be permitted to stand as valid legislation.

Keeton v. Gatlinburg, 684 S.W. 2d 97, 98 (Tenn. Ct.

App. 1984).

The City Council acknowledged that the Trial

Court and the Court of Appeals had the authority to

review the decision of the City Council in a limited

scope. The Tennessee Court of Appeals has previously

held that “when a board is performing an administrative or quasi-judicial function, review under the

common law writ of certiorari is appropriate because

de novo review under the statutory writ of certiorari

would violate the doctrine of separation of powers.”

State ex rel. Howell v. Farris, 562 S.W.3d 432,443

(Tenn. Ct. App. 2018) (emphasis supplied).

However, that is not what occurred in this case.

The Tennessee Court of Appeals decision to reverse

the trial court’s affirmation of the Chattanooga City

Council’s decision to deny Rama the Special Exception

Permit was in error. The Court of Appeals failed to

consider the lack of credibility of the witness, Mr.

Mayuresh (Michael) Patel. More importantly, Mr.

Patel admitted to violating Tennessee state law by

operating under another entity’s liquor license for

over two (2) years before even attempting to obtain a

license under Rama’s name. The Trial Court was

correct in its finding that Rama had notice and an

opportunity to be heard by the City on its application

and that the constitutional requirements of due process

had been met.

16

The Tennessee Court of Appeals not only reversed

the decision of the trial court but ordered the trial

court to issue an order directing the City Council to

approve Rama’s application for a liquor license. That

ruling was an error of law that violates separation

of powers by directing action by the legislative or

administrative branch which has an obligation to

protect the health and safety of the citizens of this

community. The ruling of the Court of Appeals fails to

recognize that the trial court is in the best position to

determine the credibility of witnesses and weigh the

evidence. Additionally, the City Council was in the best

position to make decisions regarding the best interests

of the City of Chattanooga when it denied the Special

Exceptions Liquor permit application by Rama due to

changes in the community near this location within

five hundred feet which may be considered under

zoning provisions in Chattanooga City Code 5-108.

17

CONCLUSION

The petitioner has identified several compelling

reasons for this Court to grant the Petition in this

case. For these reasons, the City of Chattanooga and

the Chattanooga City Council urge this Court that the

Petition for Writ of Certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Phillip A. Noblett

Counsel of Record

CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

100 E. 11th Street, Suite 200

Chattanooga, TN 37402

(423) 643-8250

pnoblett@chattanooga.gov

Counsel for Petitioner

June 3, 2024