Opinion
No. 76-658
Decided October 27, 1977.
From action of local licensing authority in granting liquor license, competitor sought review and district court approved issuance of the license. Competitor appealed.
Appeal Dismissed
1. INTOXICATING LIQUORS — Competitor — Not A Proper Party — Seek Review — Granting of Liquor License — No Standing — Prosecute Appeal. Under circumstances where competitor initiated action to review city council's grant of liquor license application, the competitor was not a proper party to initiate such action, nor was he a party substantially aggrieved by the district court's affirmance of city council action; therefore, he has no standing to appeal the district court judgment.
Appeal from the District Court of the County of El Paso, Honorable Donald Campbell, Judge.
R. Kenneth Sparks, P.C., for plaintiff-appellant.
Gordon D. Hinds, City Attorney, Tad S. Foster, Deputy City Attorney, M. Allen Ziegler, Jr., Deputy City Attorney, for City of Colorado Springs, defendant-appellee.
Trott, Kunstle Hughes, Howard J. Kunstle, Esq., for The Bain Corporation, defendant-appellee.
Defendant, The Bain Corporation (the applicant), applied to the Colorado Springs city council for a change of location for the exercise of its package liquor license. Plaintiff Edward A. Woda, a competitor whose liquor store is directly across the street from the applicant's proposed location, appeared at the hearing in opposition to the application. The council approved the application, and it was then approved by the state.
Claiming that the city abused its discretion and exceeded its jurisdiction in granting the application, Woda filed this C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) action against the applicant and the city. The trial court affirmed the city's action. Woda appeals. We dismiss the appeal.
The city contends that Woda has no standing to appeal. We agree.
In Kornfeld v. Perl Mack Liquors, Inc., 193 Colo. 442, 567 P.2d 383 (1977), the court held that although a competitor is a proper "party in interest" at the public hearing on a liquor license application before the local licensing authority, the term "party in interest" as used in the statute did not grant a competitor the right to participate as a party in judicial proceedings to review the action of the licensing authority. It further held that a competitor was not "a person substantially aggrieved by the district court action, which would give him a right to seek review under Rule 106(a)(4). Economic injury from lawful competition does not confer standing to question the legality of a competitor's operations."
[1] Woda argues that applying Kornfeld to the facts of this case means that where a local licensing authority approves a license application, its decision is final and unappealable. That may be the practical effect, but this court has no choice other than to follow a controlling decision of our Supreme Court. We therefore hold that Woda was neither a proper party to institute the C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) action in the district court, nor was he a person substantially aggrieved by the district court judgment. Therefore, he has no standing to appeal from that judgment. Kornfeld, supra.
The appeal is dismissed.
JUDGE KELLY concurs.
JUDGE STERNBERG specially concurs.