Rocky Mountain Retail Management, LLC v. City of Northglenn Ex Rel. City Council, 2017 CO 33

Rocky Mountain Retail Management ("Rocky Mountain") applied in Nov. 2013 for a medical marijuana center license in Northglenn; the City Council (local licensing authority) denied the application after two public hearings.
Northglenn Code § 18-14-7(h) (identical to Colo. Medical Marijuana Code § 12-43.3-303(2)) permits the licensing authority to consider the "number, type, and availability" of existing marijuana facilities near the proposed premises.
At the hearings Rocky Mountain argued its products/strains were unique and presented testimony about long wait times at a nearby facility; existing licensees disputed uniqueness and reported short wait times.
The City concluded the existing number, type, and availability of outlets adequately served the community and denied the license; Rocky Mountain sought judicial review under the state APA.
The district court held § 18-14-7(h) unconstitutionally vague and invalidated it, and concluded the denial was therefore arbitrary and capricious. Northglenn appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court.

Issue	Rocky Mountain's Argument	Northglenn's Argument	Held
Whether § 18-14-7(h) is unconstitutionally vague	The phrase "number, type, and availability" is too indefinite to give applicants notice or constrain discretion	The phrase gives commonsense guidance and objective factors; permissive wording ("may consider") does not render it void	Not vague — provides sufficient notice and reasonably constrains discretion
Whether the City improperly applied a "need" or "needs of the neighborhood" standard	The City used a "need" inquiry akin to liquor licensing (not in the marijuana code) and thus applied an improper standard	Consideration of "need" is a permissible, reasonable way to apply "number, type, and availability," and applicants had notice and opportunity to present evidence	City properly considered "need" as tied to the listed factors; not improper
Whether the denial was supported by substantial evidence (arbitrary/capricious review)	Record did not show insufficiency of existing facilities; Rocky Mountain argues denial was arbitrary	City considered witness credibility, wait times, number/type/availability, and explained findings	Denial supported by substantial evidence when record viewed as a whole; not arbitrary or capricious

Vill. of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (framework for vagueness analysis; higher specificity when First Amendment interests implicated)
Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (vagueness doctrine limits; statute must give persons of ordinary intelligence fair warning)
Watso v. Colorado Dep’t of Social Servs., 841 P.2d 299 (Colo. 1992) (vagueness doctrine and requirement that laws not force guesswork)
Regency Servs. Corp. v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs of Adams Cty., 819 P.2d 1049 (Colo. 1991) (permissive language like "including but not limited to" does not render a provision unconstitutionally vague)
Ross v. Fire & Police Pension Ass’n, 713 P.2d 1304 (Colo. 1986) (substantial-evidence standard for judicial review of administrative decisions)