Opinion
Rehearing Denied Jan. 18, 1972.
Alfred L. Capra, George Louis Creamer, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Max P. Zall, Lee G. Rallis, Denver, for defendant in error.
DUFFORD, Judge.
This case was transferred from the Supreme Court pursuant to statute.
Plaintiff in error will be referred to as the applicant and the defendant in error as the licensing authority. 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 court affirmed the decision of the licensing authority. This appeal is brought from that judgment of the district court.
In support of its application for the issuance of a liquor license, the applicant presented signed petitions and testimony favoring the issuance of the license. However, there were also presented at the license hearing letters, signed petitions, and testimony opposing license issuance. The hearing record also reveals that there was one other hotel and restaurant liquor outlet within the designated neighborhood located across the street from applicant's place of business.
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. 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 v. Salardino,
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
DWYER and ENOCH, JJ., concur.