LP-038 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

( ~ arbitrarily or capriciously. 'Ihe subject of discretion of licensing authorities is well con- sidered in 30 Am. Jur., Intoxicating Ligwrs, ~ 121, as follows: , . . . 'Ihe intendrrent of the law is that the discretionary decision shall be the outcone of examination and consideration, in other w::>rds, that it shall constitute a discharge of official duty, and not a mere expression of personal will. '" 'D1e Minnesota Suprerre Court IS nost recent decision reviewing the denial of an application for, an on-sale liqu:::>r license was in Polrran v. City of Royal ton, , 249 NW'2d 466. Royalton is a city of 600 PJPulatian and 1977, Minn. is authorized to grant up to four "on-sale" liquor li02nses. It has never had nore than three licenses outstanding. In July of 1975, Polm:m applied for an on-sale liqu:Jr license. 'D1e Royalton City Council denied the ap.?lication because Royalton " . . .has enough off-sale licenses already" and "we do not have any other reasons besides the rrain one that we did what we did for the gcxXl of the town." It was only at the court proceedings that the "for the good of the tcMn" was elal:XJrated on by an affidavit of the M3.y?r citing that Royalton had three on-sale and off-sale establish- rrents plus an .Arrerican Legion Club and that the City had no law enforcenent officer and rrerely cxmtracts with the Sheriff for a "random patrol" of sixty (60) hours a nonth. In addition, for over a year, the City had been receiving carplaints about litter, noise and "hot-rodding", which was related to the sale of liquor in the City. 'J1le cxmrt, in the Polm3n case, stated: "A ci q council has the fOwer to refuse a license or to limit the nurrber of licenses to be granted, when, in the judgrrent of the council, the welfare of the city suggests such action. State ex rel. Howie v. Common Council of ci ty of Northfield, 94 Mirm. 81, 101 N.W. 1063 (1904). The ciq council's action in denying the 'polrrans' application was reasonable under the standards set forth in our decisions." (In the Respondent's brief in the Polrnan case, the city attorney cited a decision by District Judge John A. Spellacy dated M3.y 14, 1976 ur:holding the action of the St. Cloud City Comcil renying a liquor license to an applicant vmere D~ o:nmcil stated, ailDng other things, it was saving the license for anticipated future developrrents, perhaps a Holiday Inn. See Little Johns Pub, Inc. v. City of St. Cloud, et aI, Stearns Comty District Court File No. 41401). It is Plaintiff's contention t.'1at the findings of fact o:mtained in City's Resolution lb. 1811 were not sUPfOrted by the testinnny before the Comcil. Rem2ITber that this was the second t:iJre the rratter carre on for hearing and that the Council had -3-