Abay, L.L.C. v. Nebraska Liquor Control Comm., 303 Neb. 214

Abay, L.L.C. (doing business as Blondo Convenient Food Mart) applied for a Class D packaged liquor license for a new Omaha convenience store in 2017.
Omaha City Council denied recommending the license after requesting conditions: no single-can beer sales and no distilled spirits under 375 ml; applicant declined those conditions.
The Nebraska Liquor Control Commission granted the license but imposed restrictions: "No single can sales" and "No spirits/wine sales less than .375."
Abay appealed the Commission's order to the Lancaster County District Court for de novo review on the agency record; the district court read the spirits restriction as 375 ml, found competent evidence supporting the conditions, and affirmed the Commission.
Abay argued on appeal that the Commission lacked statutory authority to impose conditions and that the conditions were arbitrary, unreasonable, and vague.
The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court order for errors appearing on the record and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Commission may impose conditions on a liquor license	Commission lacks statutory authority; may only grant or deny licenses	Statutes and precedent empower the Commission to regulate and impose conditions to protect public health and safety	Commission has authority to impose reasonable conditions consistent with the Act
Whether the specific restrictions were lawful and sufficiently definite	Restrictions were arbitrary, unreasonable, and vague (volume not specified)	Restrictions reflect city recommendation and evidence about litter/public-safety concerns; district court properly interpreted " .375" as 375 ml	Restrictions were reasonable, not arbitrary or capricious; district court reasonably read " .375" as 375 ml

Gas ’N Shop v. Nebraska Liquor Control Comm., 229 Neb. 530, 427 N.W.2d 784 (1988) (State may prescribe conditions for sale of alcoholic beverages; broad regulatory discretion)
Major Liquors, Inc. v. City of Omaha, 188 Neb. 628, 198 N.W.2d 483 (1972) (recognition of state power to regulate alcoholic beverage sales and conditions)
F & T, Inc. v. Nebraska Liquor Control Comm., 7 Neb. App. 973, 587 N.W.2d 700 (1998) (Court of Appeals concluded Commission may impose conditions on licenses)
City of Omaha v. C.A. Howell, Inc., 20 Neb. App. 711, 832 N.W.2d 30 (2013) (illustrative follow-up acknowledging Commission authority to condition licenses)
Schwarting v. Nebraska Liq. Cont. Comm., 271 Neb. 346, 711 N.W.2d 556 (2006) (district court’s de novo review on agency record; may weigh commission credibility findings)
Jolly v. State, 252 Neb. 289, 562 N.W.2d 61 (1997) (administrative bodies have only statutory authority conferred by statute)
State v. Coble, 299 Neb. 434, 908 N.W.2d 646 (2018) (legislative acquiescence inferred where judicial construction of statute remains unamended)