402 S.W.3d 176
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- TCF operated Club Lure in St. Louis; residents petitioned to revoke its liquor license within a 350-foot petition circle.
- Administrative hearing in December 2010 concluded there were 98 eligible property owners and 52 valid signatures; certain signatures and addresses were challenged but accepted.
- Judge Walsh upheld the protest petition, determining majority property-owner support and neighborhood-detriment findings in the protest case.
- Liquor license was revoked on February 8, 2011; TCF petitioned for judicial review and a stay was issued pending review.
- Trial court, in May 2012, reversed Judge Walsh, finding 92 property owners and 45 valid signatures; protest petition not sustained and license restored.
- In March 2013, TCF surrendered its license and closed; the appellate court sua sponte addressed mootness and elected to vacate the trial court judgment and dismiss the appeal as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the appeal moot due to surrender and closure? | TCF argues mootness defeats appellate review. | City contends no live controversy remains. | Yes; the appeal is moot. |
| Should the moot case be remanded to vacate the trial court judgment? | TCF seeks vacatur of judgment to reflect mootness. | City does not contest vacatur as appropriate relief. | Remand to vacate the judgment is proper. |
| Does the public-interest exception apply to preserve review? | Not asserted. | Not applicable here. | Public-interest exception does not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cocktail Fortune, Inc. v. Supervisor of Liquor Control, 994 S.W.2d 955 (Mo. banc 1999) (standard of review for administrative agency decisions)
- Henry v. Mo. Dept. of Mental Health, 351 S.W.3d 707 (Mo.App.W.D. 2011) (review framework: substantial evidence and deference to agency findings)
- Albanna v. State Bd. of Registration for Healing Arts, 293 S.W.3d 423 (Mo. banc 2009) (single-ditto record review; weight of evidence)
- Chastain v. City of Kansas City, 968 S.W.2d 232 (Mo.App.W.D. 1998) (mootness and discretionary review language)
- Joplin Waterworks Co. v. Jasper County, 38 S.W.2d 1068 (Mo. 1931) (vacatur and dismissal in moot cases; remand to vacate judgment)