Questions, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee
2011 WI App 126
Wis. Ct. App.2011Background
- Questions operates a nightclub in Milwaukee under a Class B Tavern license and sought renewal for 2009 with a suspension option; notice listed potential nonrenewal grounds including police concerns and neighborhood issues, and attached a police report synopsis.
- January 6, 2009 hearing was postponed; two neighbors testified about noise and gunfire in the vicinity of Questions.
- January 26, 2009 hearing featured MPD opposition represented by the City Attorney; the police report synopsis was read into the record over Questions' hearsay objection.
- Licenses Committee reconvened on January 26; Alderman Hamilton voted to renew with a 25-day suspension based on police synopsis and testimony; some committee members stated they would not consider certain items from the synopsis.
- City Attorney's Office drafted Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; they were presented to the Common Council on February 10, 2009 after committee members acknowledged reading them.
- The Common Council granted renewal with a 25-day suspension; Questions challenged due process and notice; the circuit court upheld the Council decision, and Questions appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| MPD opposition notice requirement | Questions argues MPD failed to file written objection. | Milwaukee ordinances permit but do not require a written MPD objection. | Not violations; issue forfeited and ordinance permissive. |
| Admissibility and sufficiency of police synopsis | Synopsis is uncorroborated hearsay and insufficient as substantial evidence. | Synopsis admissible; corroborated by other evidence and in-person testimony. | Synopsis properly admitted and supported by corroborating evidence. |
| Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law procedure | Licenses Committee did not review/approve findings drafted by City Attorney as required. | Committee acknowledged reading the findings; draft approved on the record. | Procedural requirements satisfied; findings approved. |
| Notice of intent not to renew | Notices failed to inform Questions of the Council's intention not to renew. | Notice informed of possible nonrenewal and hearing; sufficiency under statute and ordinance. | Notices adequate; intention not to renew properly communicated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gehin v. Wisconsin Group Insurance Board, 278 Wis. 2d 111 (2005 WI 16) (administrative evidence may rely on corroboration; uncorroborated hearsay alone insufficient)
- Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 271 Wis. 2d 633 (2004 WI 58) (statutory interpretation grounded in plain language and context)
- State ex rel. Ortega v. McCaughtry, 585 N.W.2d 640 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998) (certiorari standards for administrative decisions)
- Reiman Assocs., Inc. v. R/A Adver., Inc., 306 N.W.2d 292 (Wis. Ct. App. 1981) (issues not raised on appeal deemed abandoned; candor rule cautions)