Agenda - Council - 03/28/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

BERGMANN v. CITY OF MELROSE Cite n~ 420 N.W.2d 663 ment, and the remaining question as to dog ownership. On remand, we direct the trial court to award respondent reasonable attorney fees and costs and disbursements related to the default proceedings. Appellant is entitled to taxation of costs and disbursements in- curred on this appeal. DECISION The trial court abused its discretion in failing to vacate the default judgment. Reversed and remanded. Loren BERGMANN, al.b.a. Travelounge and Bottle Shop, petitioner, Appellant, ¥. CITY OF MELROSE, et al., Respondents. No. CO-87-2046. Court of Appeals of Minnesota. March 15, 1988. Liquor store owner brought action challenging city counsel's denial of his ap- plication for renewal of his liquor licenses. The District Court, Stearns County, Roger Klaphake, J., found in favor of city, and owner appealed. The Court of Appeals, Parker, J., held that: (1) city counsel's con- ditioning of liquor licenses on owner's oper- ation of family restaurant was reasonable; (2) even if owner was not responsible for payment of rea] estate taxes and special assessments owing on subject premises, de- nial of license on ground that taxes were unpaid was proper; and (3) conditioning of liquor licenses on establishment of family restaurant did not violate state or federal equal protection clauses. Affirmed. Minn. 663 (Mlnn.App. 1988) 1. Intoxicating Liquors a=~102 City counsel has broad discretion in determining whether to renew liquor li- cense, and court's scope of review of such determination is whether action is unrea- sonable, arbitrary, or capricious. 2. Intoxicating Liquors ~:~112 City may subject businesses conducted on premises where liquor sold to reason- able regulations and conditions necessary to control its sale. 3. Intoxicating Liquors ~=~79 City may require liquor license holders to make certain concessions in exchange for their licenses. 4. Intoxicating Liquors ~=*79 City counsel's conditioning of liquor license on licensee's operation of family restaurant in connection with liquor store was not unreasonable, absent evidence that combined operation of liquor store and res- taurant was unprofitable. 5. Intoxicating Liquors ~=~461/2 City has discretion to promote its wel- fare by limiting number of liquor licenses issued within its jurisdiction. 6. Intoxicating Liquors ~69 Even if liquor licensee was not liable for real estate taxes and special assess- ments on subject premises, city could re- fuse license on ground that taxes were unpaid; licensee knew of outstanding taxes and, according to contract for deed, was responsible for paying all outstanding tax- es. 7. Constitutional Law ~=~48(1) Statutes carry presumption of constitu- tionality. 8. Constitutional Law ~48(6) Person challenging classification under rational basis test must prove unconstitu- tionality beyond reasonable doubt. M.S.A. Const. Art. 1, § 7; U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 14.