Dave was extremely professional but more importantly I was treated as a person not a case. He always returned calls and emails in a very timely manner. I would definitely recommend Dave to help with legal needs! -Jennifer S.

As someone who never had a lawyer, David made everything as simple as possible. He is very easy to communicate with and provides all the answers and support you will ever need. If I ever need a lawyer again, David will be my first choice to contact. -Andrew

I was falsely accused of something and had an order filed against me. Ben represented me during court and successfully had the order dismissed. He also went above and beyond to make sure it would not show up on my record. – Brittany.

Home » Blog » Mootness

Mootness

Share

Case: Elijah “LIJ” Shaw Et Al. v. Metropolitan Government Of Nashville And Davidson County

Facts: Homeowners sued City challenging a City code provision that prevented Homeowners from serving customers at their home-based businesses. The trial court granted summary judgment to the City, concluding that the client prohibition had a rational basis. While the case was on appeal, the City repealed the challenged code provision and enacted a new provision allowing certain home-based businesses to serve up to six clients a day.

Intermediate decision: The intermediate court dismissed the appeal as moot due to the repeal of the challenged provision and enactment of a new one.

Review Granted: July 12, 2021.

Prediction: Ben thinks the Supreme Court will reverse under the facts of the case, most importantly that the new code provision has a “sunset” provision and the City has apparently continued to defend the legality of the old provision. Moreover, the new code provision still contains a similar limitation to the one initially challenged that could be litigated under the same arguments as the original suit.