Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 57-5-109 (2026)
Proximity to schools, residences, churches, places of public gatherings
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) A city or county shall not suspend, revoke or deny a permit to a business engaged in selling, distributing or manufacturing beer on the basis of the proximity of the business to a school, residence, church, or other place of public gathering if a valid permit had been issued to any business on that same location. This section shall not apply if beer is not sold, distributed or manufactured at that location during any continuous six-month period.
- (b) For the purposes of this section, "on that same location" means within the boundaries of the parcel or tract of the real property on which the business was located. This section applies whether or not a business moves the building on the location and whether or not the business was a conforming or nonconforming use at the time of the move.
- (c) If a business applies for a beer permit within the continuous six-month period referenced in this section, and if the city or county denies the business a permit and if the business appeals that denial, a new six-month continuous sale period shall begin to run on the date when the appeal of that denial is final.
Acts 1993, ch. 297, § 9; 1997, ch. 560, § 1; 2002, ch. 744, § 1; 2004, ch. 598, § 2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases, 1980–2010 · leading case: Exxonmobil Oil Corp. v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 246 S.W.3d 31 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).
Exxonmobil Oil Corp. v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 246 S.W.3d 31 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “Exxonmobil appeals the denial of a beer permit application by the Beer Permit Board of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County alleging the proximity prohibition in the local code is contravened by Tenn.Code Ann. § 57-5-109. We agree and reverse the trial…”
Exxon Corp. v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 72 S.W.3d 638 (Tenn. 2002). “We granted permission to appeal in this case to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in defining the phrase “on that same location” as it is used in Tenn. Code Ann. § 57-5-109 to mean anywhere within the boundary lines of the property.”
Cooper v. Alcohol Comm'n, 745 S.W.2d 278 (Tenn. 1988). “Cooper filed Petitions for Writ of Certiorari and Super-sedeas in these cases and the trial court, without a hearing on the merits, reversed the action of the Commission in revoking the beer permits because the Commission had not complied with the requirements of T.C.A. §…”
Cooper v. Williamson Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 746 S.W.2d 176 (Tenn. 1987). “[3] For example, T.C.A. § 57-5-109(d) (Supp. 1987) explicitly states that the review of administrative orders concerning beer permits is "by statutory writ of certiorari, with a trial de novo as a substitute for an appeal.”
Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896 (Tenn. 1992). “NOTES [1] The Legislature frequently provides that a given statutory remedy is exclusive. See e.”
Needham v. Beer Bd. of Blount Cnty., 647 S.W.2d 226 (Tenn. 1983). “The power of beer boards to revoke validly issued permits is circumscribed by T.C.A., § 57-5-109. After vesting the power of revocation in the county legislative governing body, the statute limits the power of revocation as follows: “(c) Such revocation may be made for any…”
Beer Bd. for Goodlettsville v. Brass A Saloon of Rivergate, Inc., 710 S.W.2d 33 (Tenn. 1986). “T.C.A. § 57-5-109(b), which provides that “[n]o permit or license shall be revoked on the grounds the operator or any person working for him sells to a minor over the age of eighteen (18) years if such minor exhibits an identification, false or otherwise indicating his age to be…”
Frye v. Memphis State Univ., 671 S.W.2d 467 (Tenn. 1984). “T.C.A. § 57-5-109(d). Where the record clearly showed that a more narrow review was accorded, the cause was remanded with instructions to the Chancellor “to weigh the evidence.”
Medley v. Maryville City Beer Bd., 726 S.W.2d 891 (Tenn. 1987). “Both licensees sought review in the Chancery Court pursuant to the provisions of T.C.A. § 57-5-109. The Chancellor found that both licensees had violated a municipal ordinance prohibiting the sale of beer to minors, as well as the state statute, T.”
McCarter v. Goddard, 609 S.W.2d 505 (Tenn. 1980). “*507 Judicial review of the actions taken by county beer boards is governed by T.C.A. § 57-5-109(d), which provides as follows: The action of such agency in connection with the issuance of any order of any kind, including the revocation of a license or permit or the refusal to…”
Watkins v. Naifeh, 635 S.W.2d 104 (Tenn. 1982). “TCA § 57-5-109 governs review and appeals of orders by *110 beer boards.”
Fritts v. Wallace, 723 S.W.2d 948 (Tenn. 1987). “*949 On July 25, 1985, plaintiff filed a complaint in the Carroll County Chancery Court, by authority of statutory writ of certiorari, T.C.A. §§ 57-5-109, 27-9-101, et seq., seeking de novo review of the Board’s decision.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 57-5-109(a) — 1 case
Exxonmobil Oil Corp. v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 246 S.W.3d 31 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “Exxonmobil appeals the denial of a beer permit application by the Beer Permit Board of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County alleging the proximity prohibition in the local code is contravened by Tenn.Code Ann. § 57-5-109. We agree and reverse the trial…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 57-5-109(b) — 3 cases
Metro. Beer Permit Bd. v. Jones, 625 S.W.2d 267 (Tenn. 1981).
Medley v. Maryville City Beer Bd., 726 S.W.2d 891 (Tenn. 1987). “Both licensees sought review in the Chancery Court pursuant to the provisions of T.C.A. § 57-5-109. The Chancellor found that both licensees had violated a municipal ordinance prohibiting the sale of beer to minors, as well as the state statute, T.”
Beer Bd. for Goodlettsville v. Brass A Saloon of Rivergate, Inc., 710 S.W.2d 33 (Tenn. 1986). “T.C.A. § 57-5-109(b), which provides that “[n]o permit or license shall be revoked on the grounds the operator or any person working for him sells to a minor over the age of eighteen (18) years if such minor exhibits an identification, false or otherwise indicating his age to be…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 57-5-109(c) — 1 case
Exxonmobil Oil Corp. v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 246 S.W.3d 31 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “Exxonmobil appeals the denial of a beer permit application by the Beer Permit Board of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County alleging the proximity prohibition in the local code is contravened by Tenn.Code Ann. § 57-5-109. We agree and reverse the trial…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 57-5-109(d) — 7 cases
Cooper v. Williamson Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 746 S.W.2d 176 (Tenn. 1987). “[3] For example, T.C.A. § 57-5-109(d) (Supp. 1987) explicitly states that the review of administrative orders concerning beer permits is "by statutory writ of certiorari, with a trial de novo as a substitute for an appeal.”
Frye v. Memphis State Univ., 671 S.W.2d 467 (Tenn. 1984). “T.C.A. § 57-5-109(d). Where the record clearly showed that a more narrow review was accorded, the cause was remanded with instructions to the Chancellor “to weigh the evidence.”
McCarter v. Goddard, 609 S.W.2d 505 (Tenn. 1980). “*507 Judicial review of the actions taken by county beer boards is governed by T.C.A. § 57-5-109(d), which provides as follows: The action of such agency in connection with the issuance of any order of any kind, including the revocation of a license or permit or the refusal to…”
Cooper v. Alcohol Comm'n, 745 S.W.2d 278 (Tenn. 1988). “Cooper filed Petitions for Writ of Certiorari and Super-sedeas in these cases and the trial court, without a hearing on the merits, reversed the action of the Commission in revoking the beer permits because the Commission had not complied with the requirements of T.C.A. §…”
Beer Bd. for Goodlettsville v. Brass A Saloon of Rivergate, Inc., 710 S.W.2d 33 (Tenn. 1986). “T.C.A. § 57-5-109(b), which provides that “[n]o permit or license shall be revoked on the grounds the operator or any person working for him sells to a minor over the age of eighteen (18) years if such minor exhibits an identification, false or otherwise indicating his age to be…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 57-5-109(e) — 1 case
Cooper v. Alcohol Comm'n, 745 S.W.2d 278 (Tenn. 1988). “Cooper filed Petitions for Writ of Certiorari and Super-sedeas in these cases and the trial court, without a hearing on the merits, reversed the action of the Commission in revoking the beer permits because the Commission had not complied with the requirements of T.C.A. §…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 57-5-109(f) — 4 cases
Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896 (Tenn. 1992). “NOTES [1] The Legislature frequently provides that a given statutory remedy is exclusive. See e.”
Cooper v. Alcohol Comm'n, 745 S.W.2d 278 (Tenn. 1988). “Cooper filed Petitions for Writ of Certiorari and Super-sedeas in these cases and the trial court, without a hearing on the merits, reversed the action of the Commission in revoking the beer permits because the Commission had not complied with the requirements of T.C.A. §…”
Beer Bd. for Goodlettsville v. Brass A Saloon of Rivergate, Inc., 710 S.W.2d 33 (Tenn. 1986). “T.C.A. § 57-5-109(b), which provides that “[n]o permit or license shall be revoked on the grounds the operator or any person working for him sells to a minor over the age of eighteen (18) years if such minor exhibits an identification, false or otherwise indicating his age to be…”
Lynn v. Blue (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.