having “blasted ... on two occasions, ... ha[ving] only made one sale of rock[,] ... [and having acted] under an agreement ... which provided that they would not themselves operate or allow any other person to operate ‘any mining or quarrying business.’ ” Jennette, 2000 WL 1121550, at *7. The Court of Appeals described the single sale of rock as “an incidental commercial transaction which standing alone is not indicia of an industrial, commercial or business establishment in operation,” id. (internal quotations omitted), and also gave weight to the lack of equipment necessary to conduct mining operations: It is undisputed that [the] property never had .. nsideration of the grandfather clause in Tennessee Code Annotated section 13-7-208. See, e.g., Lamar Adver. Co., 1986 WL 2639, at *4 (<HOLDING>). The diminishing assets doctrine, however,
holding that a company had not abandoned billboards because the nature of the industry requires varying levels of outdoor advertising at different times thereby justifying several periods of nonuse holding that the common liability that prompts a cause of action for contribution may arise out of the same instrument or out of different instruments or at different times holding that one agreement cannot be taken to be several agreements and therefore several conspiracies because the agreement envisages the violation of several statutes rather than one holding that numerous discrete acts of abuse by several different defendants at different locations comprised more than one occurrence holding that a defendant may be convicted of theft twice on the basis of intentional possession at one time of stolen property if the property forming the basis of the one conviction was stolen at different times and places from different owners than the property forming the basis of the second conviction