LP-038 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(0 the Council ITBking findings of fact and denying on-sale liquor license to Plaintiff and said Resolution was adopted, See Defendant's Exhibit No. 4 received in the trial hereof. ISSUE Wnether denial of an on-sale liquor license application by the New Brighton Ci ty Council on Novenber 23, 1976 was arbi tra:ry, capricious and unreasonable. ARGUMENT At no place in the pleadings nor tine in the trial hereof has Defendant City contested the fact that John J. Welsch, individually and doing business as John J. W=1sch Corrpany, a Minnesota a:>l:'fOration, is a fit and proper person to hold an on-sale liquor license within said City. Neither does the City oontest that Plaintiff is financially able to carry out his applied-for undertakings. '111e sole issue is whether the City was arbi traxy, unreasonable and capricious in denying to " Plaintiff an application for an on-sale liquor license at the sp2cific location sought. It is fundamental that the State has the p::;wer to regulate the sale of intoxicating liquors. See Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 340. 'lliis p:>wer nay be and. has been delegated to IlllIDicipalities to license and regulate the sale of intoxicating liquors by the exercise of its ordinary p:>lice p::;wer, in the instant case, see New Brighton City Code, Article V, Intoxicating Ligu::>r, rrarked Emibit "B". '111e 'fOwer ~o license involves the pc:wer to refuse to license, to limit the mlImer of licenses to be granted, and to prohibit sales by P=I'sons not licensed. Hence, it is apparent that no one has an al:::so1ute right to engage in the business of selling intoxicating liquor. In Paron v. Shakopee (1948) 226 Minn. 222, 32 l.J..v2d 603, the Minnesota Suprerre Court clearly stated: "One ,.,no is rrerely an applicant for a liquor license has no vested interest which the a:mrts are able to to protect. t~nile State ex reI. Zien v. City of Duluh" 134 Minn. 355, 159 Nw 792, Ann. Cas. 1918, A, 683, SeerrE to indicate that a city council rray be ~lled to consider an application for a license on its rrerits in a proper case, no decision of this court has been called to our attention ,,,,hich would justify a judicial order directing the council of any ci ty as to the ma.nn2r in which its discretion should be exercised or the result it should reach. To the contrary, our cases seem to hold that the courts are without p:M1er to control the decision of the governing agencies called upon to consider applications for 1iqtDr licenses. While the granting of liquor licenses is not a matter of right, but rests in the sound judgrrEnt and discretion of the council, it is elerrentary that in the exercise of its discretion, the colIDcil IrnJSt not act -2-