Walker v. Board of County Com'rs, Albany County

Decision Date05 May 1982
Docket NumberNo. 5612,5612
PartiesJoel WALKER and Valerie Walker, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ALBANY COUNTY, Wyoming, Appellee (Defendant), Carl A. Gustafson and Patricia A. Gustafson, d/b/a Centennial Valley Trading Post, Appellees (Intervenors).
CourtWyoming Supreme Court

John E. Stanfield, of Smith, Stanfield & Scott, Laramie, for appellants.

George L. Zimmers, Albany County and Pros. Atty., Laramie, for appellee Board of County Commissioners.

Jay Dee Schaefer, Laramie, for appellees Gustafson.

Before ROSE, C. J., and RAPER, THOMAS, ROONEY and BROWN, JJ.

ROONEY, Justice.

Appellants (hereinafter referred to as Walkers) petitioned the district court to review administrative actions of appellee, Board of County Commissioners of Albany County (hereinafter referred to as Board), whereby (1) Walkers were denied a retail liquor license, (2) appellees Gustafson (hereinafter referred to as Gustafsons) were granted a retail liquor license, and (3) Gustafsons were granted a dance hall license.

We affirm.

Walkers and Gustafsons operated competing businesses 1 in Centennial, an unincorporated community in Albany County. Both applied for retail liquor licenses which became available by virtue of increased population in Albany County. On August 5, 1980, the Board held a public hearing with reference to the issuance of the new retail liquor licenses. Although inquiry was specifically made at the hearing for protests to the issuance of retail liquor licenses to Walkers and to Gustafsons, there were no protests to the issuance of such licenses to either of them. The Board decided to issue only one license in Centennial, and it was issued to Gustafsons. Walkers' application was denied. Walkers petitioned the district court to review both actions.

Gustafsons had also applied for a dance hall license. After a hearing on the application, the dance hall license was issued to them on July 16, 1980. Walkers also petitioned the district court to review this action. However, when the dance hall license came before the Board for renewal on July 7, 1981, it was not renewed.

The district court concluded that the requirements of the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act were not applicable to the issuance of retail liquor licenses and that the issue relative to the dance hall license was moot.

DANCE HALL LICENSE

A cause will not be considered when a judgment rendered cannot be carried into effect. Belondon v. State, Wyo., 379 P.2d 828, 829 (1963).

" * * * Appellate courts, including trial courts in an appellate role, will not render decisions which cannot be carried into effect. Courts will not consume their time deciding moot cases; no controversy will exist and courts will not decide cases to arise in the future. State v. Jones, 1945, 61 Wyo. 350, 157 P.2d 993. * * * " Northern Utilities, Inc. v. Public Service Commission, Wyo., 617 P.2d 1079, 1085 (1980).

Walkers would have us consider the propriety of the issuance of the dance hall license to Gustafsons, although it has since been cancelled, as a question of great public interest, and because the license can be reissued. Suffice it to say that we do not consider the issue to be of the magnitude of one of great public interest. The situation as it now exists would remain unchanged by any determination now made by us. The issue is moot. The district court was correct in so finding.

DENIAL OF WALKERS' APPLICATION

Section 12-4-104(e), W.S.1977, provides:

"(e) An applicant for a renewal license or permit may appeal to the district court from an adverse decision by the licensing authority. No applicant for a new license shall have a right of appeal from the decision of the licensing authority denying an application." (Emphasis added.)

The right to judicial review of administrative actions is entirely statutory.

" 'Each statute must be carefully examined to discover the legislature's intent to restrict judicial review of administrative action. (Heikkila v. Barber (1953), 345 U.S. 229, 73 S.Ct. 603, 97 L.Ed. 972.) While it is often said that barring constitutional impediments the legislature can preclude judicial review (See Mount St. Mary's Hosp. v. Catherwood (1970), 26 N.Y.2d 493, 511, 518-519, 311 N.Y.S.2d 863, 260 N.E.2d 508 (Fuld, C. J., Concurring)), such intent must be made specifically manifest, and persuasive reason must exist to believe such was the legislative purpose. (Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner (1967), 387 U.S. 136, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 18 L.Ed.2d 681.) Only upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence of contrary legislative intent should the courts restrict access to judicial review. Rusk v. Cort (1962), 369 U.S. 367, 82 S.Ct. 787, 7 L.Ed.2d 809.' " U. S. Steel Corporation v. Wyoming Environmental Quality Council, Wyo., 575 P.2d 749, 750 (1978), quoting from Klein v. Fair Employment Practices Commission, 31 Ill.App.3d 473, 334 N.E.2d 370, 374 (1975).

Section 9-4-114(a), W.S.1977, (part of the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act) provides:

"(a) Subject to the requirement that administrative remedies be exhausted and in the absence of any statutory or common-law provision precluding or limiting judicial review, any person aggrieved or adversely affected in fact by a final decision of an agency in a contested case, or by other agency action or inaction, or any person affected in fact by a rule adopted by an agency, is entitled to judicial review * * *." (Emphasis added.)

Inasmuch as the right to judicial review of the denial of their application for a liquor license was specifically and positively forbidden by the statute, Walkers cannot here contest such denial.

GRANT OF RETAIL LIQUOR LICENSE TO GUSTAFSONS

Walkers contend that they are entitled to a judicial review of the propriety of the issuance of the retail liquor license to Gustafsons, and that the Board erred in failing to apply the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act to the hearing on Gustafsons' application whereby the issues on the merits of the matter could be properly formulated for appeal.

Those parties most likely to be concerned with the action of the issuing authority with reference to issuance or renewal of retail liquor licenses are: (1) the successful applicant for a license; (2) the unsuccessful applicant for a license; (3) the applicant for renewal of a license; (4) the attorney general, county and prosecuting attorney, and the Wyoming Liquor Commission; and (5) residents of the county, town or city issuing the license or people residing in the vicinity of the licensed, or proposed to be licensed, premises. With reference to a right of judicial review and to the application of the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act for a hearing involving these parties, we note: (1) The successful applicant for a license would not desire an appeal or be concerned with a challenge to the action. (2) As already noted, supra, § 12-4-104(e) precludes judicial review by an unsuccessful applicant for a license, wherefore the use or failure to use the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act in the hearing would be irrelevant as to him. (3) The same section expressly provides for judicial review by the district court of the refusal to approve an application for renewal of license, but § 12-4-104(f) provides that the review shall be "as a trial de novo with evidence taken and other proceedings had as in the trial of civil actions." Thus, such proceedings would not be subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. (4) The procedures set forth for revocation or suspension of a retail liquor license 2 which are to be instituted by the attorney general or by the county and prosecuting attorney are "civil actions and shall be tried before the court without a jury * * * in accordance with the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure," § 12-7-201(b), W.S.1977, or as a criminal matter, § 12-8-101, W.S.1977. On the other hand, the procedure for such suspension or revocation which is to be instituted by the Wyoming Liquor Commission is "in accordance with the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act * * * subject to judicial review * * *," § 12-7-201(d), W.S.1977; and (5) § 12-4-104(b), W.S.1977, directs in part:

" * * * A license or permit shall not be issued, renewed or transferred if the licensing authority finds from evidence presented at the hearing :

"(i) The welfare of the people residing in the vicinity of the proposed license or permit premises shall be adversely and seriously affected;

"(iv) The desires of the residents of the county, city or town will not be met or satisfied by the issuance, renewal or transfer of the license or permit * * *."

Thus, the "welfare of the people residing in the vicinity" and the "desires of the residents" must be determined "from the evidence presented at the hearing." The Administrative Procedure Act would afford such parties the right to appeal if they are " * * * aggrieved or adversely affected in fact by a final decision of an agency in a contested case, or by other agency action or inaction * * *." Section 9-4-114(a). See Rule 12.01 W.R.A.P. The issuance or transfer of a retail liquor license to a place opposed by every resident of the issuing unit and whereat the welfare of those in the vicinity (nursing home, hospital, nursery, etc.) would be obviously and seriously affected must be subject to judicial review. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act would apply to the hearing on the issuance or renewal of a retail liquor license with reference to the potential for judicial review by such residents.

In summation, a right to a hearing pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act with resulting judicial review in matters pertaining to the issuance or renewal of a retail liquor license exists only (1) to those people and residents referred to in § 12-4-104(b)(i) and (iv) for the purposes there set forth; and (2) to matters involving revocation or suspension of such licenses by the Wyoming Liquor...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Operation Save Am. v. City of Jackson, Mun. Corp.
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • April 10, 2012
    ...practice clinical social work from 2000 to 2002 "would be of no practical value to" the appellant. See Walker v. Board of County Com'rs, Albany County, 644 P.2d 772, 773–74 (Wyo.1982) ("[a] cause will not be considered when a judgment rendered cannot be carried into effect."). We do not, ho......
  • State ex rel. Bayou Liquors, Inc. v. City of Casper, 94-254
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • November 20, 1995
    ...motion concluding that, as competitors, appellants were not one of the parties identified by our decision in Walker v. Board of County Comm'rs, 644 P.2d 772 (Wyo.1982) as having standing to challenge actions of licensing authorities that issue or renew retail liquor licenses. The district c......
  • Keslar v. Police Civil Service Com'n, City of Rock Springs
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • June 29, 1983
    ...has determined that the right to judicial review of administrative decisions is entirely statutory. Walker v. Board of County Commissioners, Albany County, Wyo., 644 P.2d 772 (1982); United States Steel Corporation v. Wyoming Environmental Quality Council, Wyo., 575 P.2d 749 (1978). In the ......
  • U.S. Through Farmers Home Admin. v. Redland
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • February 21, 1985
    ...any of them, but would leave them as they were. He who comes into equity must come in with clean hands. Walker v. Board of County Commissioners, Albany County, Wyo., 644 P.2d 772 (1982); Takahashi v. Pepper Tank & Contracting Company, 58 Wyo. 330, 131 P.2d 339 (1942); Wettlin v. Jones, 32 W......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT