444 P.3d 1268
Wyo.2019Background
- The Mattheis Company operated the Town Square Tavern in Jackson, WY, holding an annual liquor license renewed for years but faced a lease expiration issue in 2017.
- The Company submitted a March 2017 license-transfer/renewal application swearing, under penalty of perjury, that its lease ran through March 31, 2018, but a contemporaneous lease modification shortened the term to October 31, 2017; the modification was not submitted with the application.
- The Town discovered the inconsistency when a different applicant later referenced the Tavern address; the Town initiated revocation proceedings after the Company admitted the application contained false information.
- The district court found the Company knowingly submitted a false application, concluded this was a "gross violation" of Title 12, rejected the Company’s advice-of-counsel defense, and revoked the liquor license rather than suspending it.
- The Company appealed; the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed, holding revocation requires a gross violation of Title 12, that the facts supported such a finding, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the license.
Issues
| Issue | Company (Plaintiff) Argument | Town (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Standard for revocation — must revocation require a "gross violation" or only violation of Title 12's "intent and purpose"? | Only a "gross" violation supports revocation; otherwise mere violations could revoke licenses. | Both statutory provisions are reconcilable; revocation requires a gross violation which will necessarily violate the intent and purpose of Title 12. | Revocation requires a gross violation of Title 12; a gross violation necessarily violates Title 12's intent and purpose. |
| 2. Did the Company commit a gross violation by submitting the false application? | The false statement was a single, isolated mistake made under counsel’s advice and not sufficiently serious or repeated to be "gross." | The submission was knowing, flagrant, and therefore a gross violation warranting revocation. | Court: factual findings show the Company knowingly submitted false information; that conduct was a gross (flagrant) violation. |
| 3. Does advice of counsel excuse or mitigate the violation? | Reliance on advice of experienced counsel mitigates or excuses the conduct and should affect penalty. | Advice of counsel does not excuse a knowing false oath and should not mitigate here. | The record did not support good-faith reliance; advice-of-counsel did not mitigate or excuse the gross violation. |
| 4. Remedy — should the license have been suspended instead of revoked? | District court should have suspended rather than revoked given circumstances and comparative enforcement. | Revocation was within discretion because suspension would be meaningless here and the violation was serious. | No abuse of discretion; district court reasonably revoked rather than suspended. |
Key Cases Cited
- McClure v. Latta, 348 P.2d 1057 (Wyo. 1960) (gross negligence contrasted with ordinary negligence; degree-of-conduct framework used to define "gross" in statute)
- In re Birkholz, 434 P.3d 1102 (Wyo. 2019) (use of dictionary and plain-language tools in statutory interpretation)
- Meiners v. Meiners, 438 P.3d 1260 (Wyo. 2019) (standard of review for bench trial factual findings and legal conclusions)
- Acorn v. Moncecchi, 386 P.3d 739 (Wyo. 2016) (review standards for factual findings and appellate deference to trial court)
- In re JB, 390 P.3d 357 (Wyo. 2017) (each word in statute must be afforded meaning; avoid rendering statutory language superfluous)