Hanna v. State Liquor Control Commission, 53960
| Citation | 179 N.W.2d 374 |
| Decision Date | 02 September 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 53960,53960 |
| Parties | Geraldine K. HANNA, Appellee, v. STATE of Iowa LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION and Walter E. Edelsen, Chairman, Homer Adcock, and Carl G. Sinning, Appellants. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., G. Douglas Essy, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellants.
Ted V. Ruffin and Larry G. Gutz, Cedar Rapids, for appellee.
The Linn County District Court sustained petitioner's 'Motion for Judgment' on her petition for writ of certiorari on the ground that the question of the commission's authority to suspend petitioner's liquor license became moot after the City of Cedar Rapids issued her a license for the next year with the commission's approval. The Iowa Liquor Control Commission appealed from this ruling.
On February 27, 1968, the Iowa Liquor Control Commission, after due notice and hearing, suspended petitioner's liquor license for a period of six months ending August 1, 1968. The suspension was the result of the alleged sale of two bottles of liquor to two state agents by petitioner's husband-employee in violation of section 125.7, Code of Iowa. Petitioner claimed the act occurred without her knowledge and against her wishes and express direction. A criminal charge against her was dismissed by the municipal court. A petition for writ of certiorari was filed seeking a determination of the commission's authority to suspend a liquor license without a showing that the license holder had knowledge of and consented to the illegal sale. The Linn County District Court stayed the order suspending the license.
A hearing on the petition for a writ of certiorari was held May 15, 1969. About June 12, 1969, before the trial court had decided the issues raised by certiorari, petitioner filed a 'Motion for Judgment' stating in part:
'That the date of the period of suspension as ordered by the (commission) has now passed, and insofar as a new license has issued, the question of the commission's authority to suspend any license has now become moot, and the commission is now without any authority to act on a former suspension of a previously held license * * *.'
The commission filed no resistance to the motion and the trial court sustained it. This appeal followed.
I. Petitioner claims the trial court correctly sustained her motion for judgment because the commission did not resist it. Cases cited in support of this contention hold that questions not properly raised and preserved in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. They are not in point.
Petitioner did not specify under which rule of civil procedure her motion was made. We have treated it as a motion for summary judgment. R.C.P. 237. Under this rule, the trial court considers the 'pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any' in determining whether there is a 'genuine issue as to any material fact' and whether the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
A resistance is not required, but the parties are bound by the record before the trial court at the time of the submission of the motion. If the ruling constitutes a final judgment, as in this case, the aggrieved party may appeal on that record.
II. The issue before us is whether the question of the commission's authority to suspend a liquor license becomes moot (1) after the period of suspension stated in the suspension order has passed, or (2) the commission has approved of the issuance of a license for the coming year while the suspension has been stayed by order of court pending its decision on the petition for writ of certiorari.
The fact that the date for the termination of the suspension had passed is of no importance. The order necessarily...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCarney v. Des Moines Register & Tribune Co., 2--57145
...Company, 196 N.W.2d 526, 529 (Iowa 1972); Frudden Lumber Company v. Clifton, 183 N.W.2d 201, 204 (1971); Hanna v. State Liquor Control Commission, 179 N.W.2d 374, 375 (Iowa 1970). While it is true the information before the court on a motion for summary judgment is to be viewed in the light......
-
Carreras v. Iowa Dep't of Transp.
...It is intended only to delay the enforcement of the action stayed, not render it ineffective." Hanna v. State Liquor Control Comm'n , 179 N.W.2d 374, 376 (Iowa 1970) ; see Gothard v. Spradling , 586 S.W.2d 443, 447 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979) (en banc) ("The stay or restraining order did not elimin......
-
Brody v. Ruby
...and Procedure: Civil, § 2713, at 393 (1973). This court has demonstrated a similar flexibility. See Hanna v. State Liquor Control Commission, 179 N.W.2d 374, 375 (Iowa 1970). Finally, plaintiff contends defendants did not meet the burden of proof necessary to sustain a motion for summary In......
-
Hoefer v. Sioux City Community School Dist.
...v. Hoden, 222 N.W.2d 727, 732 (Iowa 1974) (Motion for summary judgment may be made in any civil action.); Hanna v. State Liquor Control Commission, 179 N.W.2d 374, 375 (Iowa 1970) (Supreme court treats "motion for judgment" as a motion for summary judgment in a certiorari action.). We merel......