City of Manitou Springs v. Walk
| Decision Date | 29 December 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 19874,19874 |
| Citation | 367 P.2d 744,149 Colo. 43 |
| Parties | CITY OF MANITOU SPRINGS, Colorado, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. Mary H. WALK and Arthur Walk, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
George M. Gibson, Colorado Springs, for plaintiff in error.
Donald E. La Mora, Colorado Springs, for defendants in error.
In the trial court Mary Walk and Arthur Walk, defendants in error, were plaintiffs and the City of Manitou Springs was defendant. The Walks there sought to compel the city of Manitou Springs to renew a license to dispense 3.2 beer in the establishment operated by the Walks and known as the Apache Inn.
In March of 1960 the city of Manitou Springs issued a dance hall license and a license to dispense 3.2 beer to the Walks for the premises known as the Apache Inn, located near the Arcade in the city of Manitou Springs. The Arcade consists of shops and amusement centers and is one of the tourist attractions of that city.
In February, 1961, the Walks applied for a renewal of their 3.2 beer license which would expire in March of 1961 and after a hearing on February 7, 1961, their application for renewal was denied by the town council, the liquor licensing authority of Manitou Springs. The Walks filed their action for review in the County Court of El Paso County and after a hearing that court remanded the matter to the town council for a further hearing, which was held on April 25, 1961.
At this second hearing before the town council, the Walks presented witnesses on their behalf who testified that the Walks were of good character and were fine citizens of the community; that they believed the operation of the Apache Inn was orderly and not in violation of the law. They further testified to their observations while at the Inn.
At the close of this evidence there was presented to the town council two petitions signed by neighbors living within 300 yards of the Apache Inn. These petitions requested the town council not to renew the license on the grounds that the operation of the Apache Inn in this area had caused noise and rowdiness.
The Chief of Police and one of his officers testified that there was a teen-age problem in Manitou Springs; that most of the trouble occurred in the Arcade near the Apache Inn; that there were seven fights in front of the Apache Inn in 1960 and that there were numerous complaints of noise and rowdiness in the area. Residents of the neighborhood testified concerning the noise in the area from young people going in and out of the Apache Inn and that the there was much loud and vulgar language from young people who frequented the Inn. They further testified that teenagers congregated in the area, blocking traffic and causing disturbances. Operators of three motels in the area testified that they lost business because of the noise and disturbances which had occurred in the area since the opening of the Apache Inn.
Upon conclusion of the evidence, the council, upon motion, denied the renewal. In this state of the record the matter came before the trial court which ordered the city of Manitou Springs to issue the license, holding that there was no competent evidence to support the town council's decision denying renewal of the license. From this ruling the city of Manitou Springs seeks reversal by writ of error.
At the outset let us make it clear that no licensee under the Fermented Malt Beverages Act (C.R.S. '53, 75-1-1 et seq.) has a vested right to renewal of a license. Board of County Commissioners of Gunnison County v. Buckley, 121 Colo. 108, 213 P.2d 608. This is not to say that a licensing authority may arbitrarily or summarily deny a renewal, but where, as here, a full hearing is granted, the question of renewal becomes one for the exercise of the discretion of the licensing authority and it may refuse to renew such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ficarra v. Department of Regulatory Agencies, Div. of Ins.
...§§ 75-2-1 to -37, 4 C.R.S. (1953), did not have vested rights in the renewal of their licenses. Accord City of Manitou Springs v. Walk, 149 Colo. 43, 45, 367 P.2d 744, 745 (1961) ("let us make it clear that no licensee under the Fermented Malt Beverages Act ... has a vested right to renewal......
-
Colo. Health Consultants v. City & Cnty. of Denver
...367, 21 N.E.2d 318, 321 (1939) ). However, there is no vested right in the renewal of a license. Id. ; City of Manitou Springs v. Walk , 149 Colo. 43, 45, 367 P.2d 744, 745 (1961) (holding that no licensee under the Fermented Malt Beverages Act has a vested right to renewal of a license); B......
-
Squire Restaurant and Lounge, Inc. v. City and County of Denver
...continuing economic viability. Contrary to the Department's suggestion, the supreme court's decision in City of Manitou Springs v. Walk, 149 Colo. 43, 367 P.2d 744 (1961) does not require a different result. There, the court did uphold a refusal to renew a license to dispense 3.2 beer, base......
-
Morris–schindler Llc v. City
...only determine if the record supports the decision, not whether we would arrive at a different decision. City of Manitou Springs v. Walk, 149 Colo. 43, 46, 367 P.2d 744, 746 (1961). “All reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the action of the licensing authority.” Id. (citing Bd. of......
-
Moral Character of the Liquor Licensee or Applicant
...v. Antonio, 409 P.2d 505 (Colo. 1966). 8. Mr. Lucky's, Inc. v. Dolan, 591 P.2d 1021 (Colo. 1979). 9. City of Manitou Springs v. Walk, 367 P.2d 744 (Colo. 1962). 10. Squire Restaurant and Lounge, Inc. v. City and County of Denver, 890 P.2d 164 (Colo. App. 1994); CRS § 12-46-103(1.7), (4.5). ......