Court Opinion

ID: 9742665
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:17:34.600946+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:34.600240
License: Public Domain

Thomas Gallagher, Justice
(dissenting).
In my opinion the determination of the Department of Commerce that the evidence was insufficient to establish a reasonable public demand for the proposed bank at the described location in South St. Paul is unjustified. Such evidence established without dispute that South St. Paul has increased in population to 21,500 persons; that it is presently served by only two banks located in a business district approximately one mile from the proposed location of the new bank; that 35 percent of 2,366 persons interviewed indicated their intended use of the services of the new bank if it were established at the location proposed; and that 25 percent of 313 householders interviewed by the objectors either would or might transfer their banking requirements to the new bank if it were established as proposed. The department’s determination in the face of such undisputed evidence, in my opinion, must be regarded as arbitrary and unreasonable. The majority opinion appears to concede this when it states:
“* * * jt seems apparent to us that a public demand can be inferred not only from the facts actually adduced by the testimony but from the tremendous expansion in our population and in our economy, of which the department and the court can properly take judicial notice.”
Affirmance of the department’s determination here would seem to constitute approval of practices leading to monopolies in’ the banking field.
Mr. Justice Rogosheske, not having been a member of the court *275at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.