Frey Corporation v. City of Peoria, Illinois
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17123
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Frey owned 1823 W. Lincoln Ave, Peoria, Illinois, for over forty years, with a shopping center and grocery space.
- Shop Rite, the grocery tenant, was discovered selling Viagra illegally from the store and Patel, its president, was arrested and pled guilty.
- The City of Peoria revoked Shop Rite’s liquor license and, in a separate order, also revoked Frey’s site approval for retail sale of alcohol at the same location.
- Frey challenged the revocation as a violation of procedural and substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Peoria; Frey appeals, arguing site approval is a protected property right and that process was due; the court trends toward affirming.
- The opinion focuses on whether site approval constitutes a protected property right and, if not, whether any process was constitutionally required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is site approval a protected property right under the Fourteenth Amendment? | Frey argues Illinois/Peoria law creates a property interest in site approval. | Peoria contends site approval is contingent on liquor licenses and not a durable property right. | Site approval is not a protected property right; due process not required. |
| Does Frey have a substantive due process claim regarding the revocation? | Frey asserts substantive due process rights were violated by the revocation. | The claim is undeveloped and the action must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. | Substantive due process claim fails; rational basis review applies and is satisfied. |
| Does Frey have procedural due process rights before revocation of site approval? | Frey claims a right to notice and hearing before revocation. | Site approval is not a protected property right and process may be minimal. | Even if protected, process provided was sufficient; Frey had notice and opportunity to be heard. |
| Did Frey waive a land-use/ zoning argument below? | Frey argued the site approval functioned as land-use regulation. | Waived because Frey did not present this argument below. | Waiver prevents consideration of the land-use argument on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Durable Mfg. Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 578 F.3d 497 (7th Cir. 2009) (de novo review; standard for administrative action)
- Reed v. Village of Shorewood, 704 F.2d 943 (7th Cir. 1983) (property rights depend on state law; protected if rights are secure and durable)
- Club Misty, Inc. v. Laski, 208 F.3d 615 (7th Cir. 2000) (Illinois liquor license is protected property; revocable for cause)
- LaChance v. Erickson, 522 U.S. 262 (1998) (due process requires notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) (principle that less-than-full evidentiary hearing may suffice before adverse action)
- Gen. Auto Serv. Station v. City of Chicago, 526 F.3d 991 (7th Cir. 2008) (contextual due process considerations for land-use actions)