Court Opinion

ID: 9862988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 02:41:25.398237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:45:46.335380
License: Public Domain

On Petition to Rehear.
Defendant has filed a petition to rehear, asserting that this Court erred in its construction of Ordinance 316, as set forth in paragraph 1, page 889 of our opinion in 340 S.W.2d; that instead of holding that, upon compliance with the ordinance, the issuance of a permit was merely *398a ministerial duty which the city authorities could not refuse, we should have held that such ordinance gave such authorities discretionary and arbitrary power to refuse to issue permits and was, therefore, unconstitutional.
Thus, the petition to rehear points out no matter of law or fact overlooked, but only reargues a matter which counsel insists was improperly decided after argument and full consideration. Such a petition presents no ground for rehearing.
“ ‘The office of a petition to rehear is to call the attention of the court to matters overlooked, not to those things which the counsel supposes were improperly decided after full consideration’ (Louisville & N. Railroad Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 125 Tenn. 658, 691, 148 S.W. 671, 680). Gulf, M. & O. R. Co. v. Underwood, 182, Tenn. 467, 476, 187 S.W.2d 777, 780; Colbaugh v. State, 188 Tenn. 103, 112, 216 S.W.2d 741.)” Delta Loan & Finance Co. of Term. v. Long, 206 Tenn. 709, 337 S.W.2d 606, 607.
The petition to rehear is denied at petitioner’s cost.