This is an administrative case. Petitioner appeals as of right from a decision of the respondent, the Liquor Control Commission (lcc), to deny petitioner’s request for a transfer of a license to sell hard liquor. We affirm.
Petitioner holds a specially designated merchant (sdm) license to sell carry-out beer and wine. See MCL 436.2q; MSA 18.972(17). In June of 1989, it filed a request with, respondent for a transfer of a specially designated distributor (sdd) license to sell hard liquor on a carry-out basis. See MCL 436.2p; MSA 18.972(16). Petitioner apparently sought to acquire the sdd license from a nearby merchant.
Although petitioner obtained the approval of local authorities in accordance with MCL 436.17(3); MSA 18.988(3), respondent declined to approve the transfer request. Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed in circuit court. This appeal followed.
In this case, there are three sdd license holders —including the intervenor appellee — within 2,640 feet of petitioner’s proposed sdd location, all of whom opposed the license transfer request. However, all are separated from petitioner’s proposed sdd location by four-lane roads, so that the above language of Rule 33(c) could apply. The lcc nevertheless refused to grant petitioner an exemption.
The lcc relied upon 1985 AACS, R 436.1105 (2) (a), (c), and (j) (Rule 5), in denying petitioner’s request. Rule 5 provides that "[t]he commission shall consider all of the following factors in determining whether an applicant may be issued a license: (a) The applicant’s management experience in the alcoholic liquor business. . . . (c) The applicant’s general business reputation. ... (j) The effects (sic) that the issuance of a license would have on the health, welfare, and safety of the general public.”
The lcc found that, although petitioner qualified for a waiver under Rule 33, the area’s population was shrinking and did not need another sdd license. Further, it found that because petitioner
Petitioner first argues that the circuit court used an incorrect standard for reviewing the agency’s decision. We agree, but find that on this record the error was harmless. We write to settle the confusion surrounding the applicable standard of review. In order to do that, we will examine the various possible sources of a standard for appellate review.
The Liquor Control Act does not prescribe a procedure for requesting license transfers or provide a standard of review for the denial of such requests. See MCL 436.17(3); MSA 18.988(3). The act does not require that a hearing be held to consider a transfer request. MCL 436.17(3); MSA 18.988(3); but compare MCL 436.17(4); MSA 18.988(4) (a hearing is required before revocation of a liquor license). Rather, the procedure for considering transfer requests is spelled out in Rule 33.
The Administrative Procedures Act (apa) confers a right to appeal, after exhaustion of all administrative remedies, upon a person "aggrieved by a final decision or order
in a contested case,”
MCL 24.301; MSA 3.560(201) (emphasis added). A "contested case,” however, is defined as "a proceeding including . . . licensing, in which determination of legal rights, duties, or privileges of a named party
is required by law to be made
by an agency
after an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing.”
MCR
Under the Michigan Constitution, "[a]ll final decisions ... of any administrative . . . agency existing under the constitution or by law, which are judicial or quasi-judicial and affect private rights or licenses, shall be subject to direct review by the courts as provided by law. This review shall include,
as a minimum,
the determination whether such final decisions . . . are authorized by law; and
in cases in which a hearing is required,
whether the same are supported by competent, material and substantial evidence on the whole record.” Const 1963, art 6, § 28. (Emphasis added.) Because a hearing is not required, a decision by the lcc to deny a license transfer is reviewed only under the minimum standard.
Semaan v Liquor Control Comm,
After reviewing all possible sources of standards for judicial review, we conclude that only the minimal constitutional standard applies, and we therefore review the decision to deny a transfer to see whether it was authorized by law. Const 1963, art 6, § 28; Semaan, supra at 40-41; Delly, supra at 263-264; 13-Southfield Associates, supra at 685-686. Additionally, however, because the decision whether to grant an exemption from Rule 33 is discretionary, we will review it for an abuse of discretion. 1
Substantively, petitioner argues that there is no
First, the Liquor Control Act does not grant approval power to local agencies. Rather, regarding on-premises consumption licenses only, the act requires local approval before the lcc can grant a license. See MCL 436.17(3); MSA 18.988(3). There is no similar provision regarding carry-out sales. The opinion of local authorities is only one of the factors to be considered in deciding whether to grant a carry-out license. See Rule 5(2)(d).
Second, the plain meaning of Rule 5(2)(a), (c), and (j) is broad enough to empower respondent to consider prior liquor law violations, and, therefore, its decision to deny petitioner’s transfer request on the basis of such violations is authorized by law. Further, it is reasonable for the lcc to believe that the fact that petitioner has previously violated the act reflects poorly on its management experience and business reputation, and raises concerns about the health, welfare, and safety of the general public. See Rule 5(2)(a), (c), and (j). Therefore, denying petitioner’s request on the basis of prior violations does not constitute an abuse of discretion.
Affirmed.
Notes
Because appellant did not argue below that the appropriate method of review is superintending control, that question is not preserved for appeal and need not be reviewed. However, we note that “[a]n order of superintending control is not available to a plaintiff who has another adequate remedy by way of an appeal.”
Barham v Workers’ Compensation Appeal Bd,