Opinion
Aug. 24, 1971.
Editorial Note:
This case has been marked 'not for publication' by the court.
Max P. Zall, City Atty., Lee G. Rallis, Asst. City Atty., Denver, for plaintiff in error.
William D. Holland, Lakewood, for defendant in error.
DUFFORD, Judge.
This case was transferred from the Supreme Court pursuant to statute.
The opinion of this court announced in this case on July 20, 1971, is hereby withdrawn, and this opinion is herewith substituted.
Plaintiff in error will be referred to as the licensing authority and the defendant in error as the applicant. The applicant was denied a hotel and restaurant liquor license by the licensing authority on the basis that the applicant had failed to show that the existing outlets were not serving the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood. The applicant then filed an action in the district court, which held that the licensing authority had abused its discretion and had acted arbitrarily, and ordered that the license be issued. The licensing authority brings this appeal from the district court decision.
In support of its application for the issuance of a liquor license, the applicant presented signed petitions favoring the issuance of the license. However, there were also presented at the license hearing signed petitions opposing license issuance. During the course of the license hearing, the applicant and four other witnesses testified in favor of the granting of the license, but the record also discloses that other persons appeared in opposition to the granting of the license and testified that there were adequate liquor outlets within the designated neighborhood. The hearing record also reveals that there were four other hotel and restaurant and liquor outlets within the neighborhood.
Upon reconsideration of the record in this case, we conclude that, although there was some evidence before the licensing authority that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood were not being met, there was also substantial evidence from which it could have concluded, in compliance with the provisions of C.R.S.1963, 75--2--42, that those requirements were adequately served. We, therefore, hold that there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the licensing authority in denying the application for a license, and that the reversal of its decision by the district court was an invasion of the statutory authority conferred upon the licensing authority. By their nature, licensing authorities are vested with wide discretion, and prior decisions of our Supreme Court have held that all doubts must be resolved in their favor. Heinz v. Bauer, 150 Colo. 589, 375 P.2d 520; Board of County Commissioners, etc. v. Salardino, 138 Colo. 66, 329 P.2d 629.
The judgment of the district court is reversed.
COYTE and ENOCH, JJ., concur.