Wright v. Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd., 45910

• Decision Date: 18 September 1973
• Docket Number: No. 45910,45910
• Citation: 516 P.2d 245
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
• Parties: Floyd R. WRIGHT, Jr., d/b/a George's Package Store, Appellant, v. OKLAHOMA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD, Appellee.

Page 245

516 P.2d 245

Floyd R. WRIGHT, Jr., d/b/a George's Package Store, Appellant, v. OKLAHOMA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD, Appellee.

No. 45910.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Sept. 18, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 9, 1973.

Ivester, Ivester & Ivester, Sayre, for appellant.

Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., Steven E. Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

BERRY, Justice:

The sole issue presented herein is whether the District Court erred in affirming the order of Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Board refusing to renew appellant's license to operate a retail package liquor store in Texola, Oklahoma, on the ground the town is inhabited by less than 200 persons.

Article XXVII, § 4, Oklahoma Constitution provides in part:

'Retail sales of alcoholic beverage shall be limited to the original sealed package, by privately owned and operated package stores, in cities and towns having a population in excess of two hundred.'

37 O.S.1971 § 537(c)(4), provides:

'No license to operate a retail package store shall issue unless such store shall be located in a city or town having a population in excess of two hundred (200) according to the 1950 Federal Decennial Census or any succeeding Federal Decennial Census.'

37 O.S.1971 § 527(a)(10), provides:

'The Board shall refuse to issue a * * * package store license * * * or * * * renewal application, if it has reasonable grounds to believe and finds any of the following to be true:

'(10) That the applicant, in the case of an application for renewal of any license, would not be eligible for such license on a first application;'

At a hearing held before the Board's Director on July 23, 1971, the Board introduced the 1970 Federal Decennial Census figures showing the population of Texola to be 144. Appellant introduced no contrary evidence. Based upon this evidence the Director issued an order refusing to renew appellant's license and the Board affirmed the Director's order. Appellant then sought judicial review. The District Court remanded the case to the Board to allow appellant to introduce additional evidence, and at a hearing on April 19, 1972, appellant introduced evidence showing the population of Texola to be 149. The District Court then affirmed the Board's order refusing to renew appellant's license and appellant appeals.

Appellant contends the population factor set forth in the Constitution is arbitrary and the trial court erred in failing to give equitable consideration to appellant's position, and in failing to consider that appellant has invested years of his life and his money in the establishment and development of his business, has committed no overt act which would justify revocation of his license, and his license has been in effect for a sufficient length of time, based upon appellant's monetary investment, to create a property right in the license which could not be terminated without just cause...