Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/1998

Home

Page 8 m February 25, 1998 Z.B. Iowa. The city council suspended their liquor licenses after finding each illegally sold alcohol to minors. The city also fined both owners. Under state law, either a "local authority" or the state alcoholic beverage division could revoke a liquor license, suspend a license for up to one year, or impose a civil penalty of up to $1000 per violation. Before suspending a license or issuing a fine, the licensee had to be given written notice and a chance for a hearing. The division could appoint an administrative la.w judge to conduct the hearing and issue a proposed decision, and the division administrator would issue the final decision. A licensee aggrieved by the administrator's decision could appeal to court. However, if a local authority issued the suspension or fine though, the licensee had to appeal to the state alcohol division. Each owner brought a separate lawsuit against the city council, challenging the city council's decision to suspend their liquor licenses. The court combined the lawsuits. The city council asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing the owners had to appeal to the state alcohol division before they could appeal to court. The owners apparently argued that, despite the liquor license statute, they didn't have to appeal to the alcohol division. They claimed the state administrative law statute excluded city councils from the definition of "agencies" subject to administrative review. The court dismissed the appeal, finding the owners failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. The owners appealed to the state's highest court. They claimed they didn't have to pursue an administrative remedy before appealing to court because the time limit for pursuing the administrative remedy extended beyond the time limit for asking a court to exercise its discretionary powers to review an "inferior tribunal's" decision. DECISION: Affirmed. The owners had to exhaust all. administrative remedies before appealing to court, which they failed to do. The state liquor statute provided the administrative procedures licensees had to follow when challenging a license suspension. Under the statute, if a local authority suspended a liquor license, the licensee had to appeal to the state alcohol division before appealing to court. It didn't matter that the time limit for pursuing an administrative appeal extended beyond the time limit for asking a court to exert its discretionary powers -- the point of creating administrative remedies was to displace the general remedy of seeking a discretionary review of a city council's decision. By including local authorities in the procedures for appealing liquor license suspensions, the state Legislature was trying to assure uniformity in the treat- ment of licensees irrespective of whether the initial suspension was imposed by the state agency or local authorities. see also: Boomhower v. Cerro Gordo County Board of Supervisors, 173 N. W. 2d 95 (1969).