Court Opinion

ID: 9664141
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:04:23.970435+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:02.569239
License: Public Domain

WOLLMAN, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
Appellants misconstrue the spirit of the Administrative Procedures Act. Although city council members should not remain oblivious to the desires of their constituents, state law requires certain safeguards be met to protect the interests of an applicant for a license. SDCL 35-2-13 gives such applicant the right to a hearing, and SDCL 35-2-3 requires notice and hearing before a retail license can be granted. SDCL 1-26-27 states that when the “grant, denial, or renewal of a license is required to be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing,” the rules for contested cases apply. If the requirements of these statutes are too onerous for the governing bodies of smaller municipalities to comply with, then legislative action, not judicial relief, should be sought.
I would affirm the judgment.