Court Opinion

ID: 9658467
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:00:59.708958+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:55.559771
License: Public Domain

OTIS, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent from the decision of the majority. I would hold that the plaintiff, Tama-rac Inn, Inc., failed to meet its burden of proving that the Long Lake City Council’s decision to not renew the plaintiff’s application for a restaurant liquor license for 1980 was arbitrary and capricious. Under the facts of this case, I would hold that the trial court should have denied the plaintiff’s petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the city council to renew the license.
This controversy arose out of the plaintiff’s failure to comply with a condition to which it agreed in December 1976, namely, that the plaintiff would open a restaurant in conjunction with an off-sale liquor establishment in exchange for the council’s promise to reserve a restaurant liquor license for the establishment. Although the plaintiff’s bar opened for business in early 1977, it did not complete construction of the promised restaurant until after the city council had decided in December 1979 not to renew the plaintiff’s liquor license for the following year. The restaurant was substantially completed prior to the mandamus hearing in this matter.
The record shows that the city council’s decision was based in part on the plaintiff’s breach of its promise to complete the restaurant in a timely manner. The plaintiff’s manager had reaffirmed the corporation’s promise at renewal hearings before the council in December of 1977 and 1978. The council also based its decision on evidence that was presented at a second hearing concerning numerous police complaints, nui- . sanee problems, and under age drinking that was allegedly occurring at the establishment.
On the basis of the evidence adduced by the council during its three-day hearing in January, 1980, I would hold that the decision not to renew the license was not arbitrary and capricious.1 Accordingly, I would reverse the decision of the district court.

. The applicable standard in this case is set forth in Wajda v. City of Minneapolis, 310 Minn. 339, 246 N.W.2d 455 (1976) and Country Liquors, Inc. v. City Council of City of Minneapolis, 264 N.W.2d 821 (Minn.1978).