Opinion ID: 1780646
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Discretionary Action by a County Commission

Text: In this action, ECO contends that the Commission acted improperly in denying the second permit. To determine whether the summary judgment for the Commission was appropriate, we must first define the standard applicable to a court's review of a county commission's discretionary decision when, as here, the county commission acts to grant or to deny a permit to use a right-of-way. ECO argues that the relevant inquiry is whether the Commission's decision to deny the permit was arbitrary or capricious. [7] We agree. Our cases have consistently held that local governments may not arbitrarily exercise their discretionary powers, including the power to grant or to deny a permit to use a right-of-way. In Mobile County v. City of Saraland, 501 So.2d 438 (Ala. 1987), we issued a writ of mandamus to compel a city council to grant such a permit to Mobile County. We based that decision on our conclusion that the city's denial of the permit was arbitrary and capricious. 501 So.2d at 440. A county commission is subject to the same standard. See Etowah County Comm'n v. Hayes, 569 So.2d 397, 398 (Ala.1990)(judicial review of county commission's decisions extends to conduct so arbitrary or capricious as to contravene lawfully constituted authority); Black v. Pike County Comm'n, 375 So.2d 255 (Ala.1979)(analyzing denial of liquor license under arbitrary-or-capricious standard). [8] Although our cases have not always used the words arbitrary or capricious, we have consistently applied that standard in practice when reviewing a county's decision to grant or deny a license or permit. [9]