Opinion ID: 2063276
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Class F Licenses

Text: Finally, we address briefly petitioners' contention that the issuance of Class F licenses was unlawful and prejudged the Class D proceedings. First, the suggestion that the Board's ruling on the Class F licenses prejudged the issues in the Class D proceeding is meritless, as the Board had already received all the evidence on the Class D application at the time it issued its order in the Class F proceedings. The Board's subsequent decision on the Class D license, issued three months later, made no mention of the Class F proceedings. Moreover, Class D and Class F applications each raise completely different issues. A Class F license may be issued solely in the discretion of the Board. D.C.Code 1973, § 25-111(j). Class D license applicants, by contrast, must meet certain statutory criteria, see id. § 25-115. With respect to the lawfulness of the class F licenses themselves, we have no jurisdiction to consider this aspect of petitioners' argument. The Board's order denying petitioners' motion to suspend or revoke the Class F licenses was issued November 26, 1979. This ruling was a final, appealable order within the meaning of D.C.Code 1978 Supp., § 1-1502(11). See Washington Urban League, Inc. v. Public Service Commission, D.C.App., 295 A.2d 906, 908 (1972). Petitioners did not timely seek review of this order. Accordingly, we are without jurisdiction to review it. D.C. App.R. 15(b).