ABC Liquors, Inc. v. City of Ocala
366 So. 2d 146 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipal ordinance that grants a city council arbitrary and unfettered authority to approve or deny a business location on a case-by-case basis, without providing any definite standards to guide its decision, violates the constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection.
Facts:
- ABC Liquors, Inc. (ABC) is a state-licensed vendor of alcoholic beverages in Florida.
- The City of Ocala's comprehensive zoning plan designates 'B-2' zones where retail alcoholic beverage sales are a permitted land use.
- The City of Ocala enacted ordinances that, on top of zoning, required any new retail vendor of alcoholic beverages to obtain approval for a specific location through the passage of a special, separate ordinance by the City Council.
- These ordinances contained no standards, criteria, or guidelines to direct the City Council or Mayor in deciding whether to approve or reject a proposed location.
- ABC sought to open a store at a location that fully complied with all existing 'B-2' zoning requirements.
- The Ocala City Council initially passed a proposed ordinance to approve ABC's location by a 3-2 vote.
- Subsequently, the Mayor of Ocala vetoed the ordinance, and the City Council failed to override the veto, which prohibited ABC from operating its business at the chosen location.
Procedural Posture:
- ABC Liquors, Inc. filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Marion County, Florida, asserting that the city's ordinances were void.
- The parties submitted the case to the trial court on a pre-trial stipulation of facts.
- The trial court entered a final judgment on the pleadings and facts in favor of the City of Ocala, upholding the validity of the challenged ordinances.
- ABC Liquors, Inc., as appellant, appealed the trial court's final judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a municipal ordinance violate constitutional due process and equal protection guarantees when it requires a state-licensed alcoholic beverage vendor to obtain a location-specific ordinance from the city council for a new establishment, without providing any standards or criteria to govern the council's approval or denial?
Opinions:
Majority - Boyer, Acting Chief Judge
Yes, the ordinance is unconstitutional. An ordinance that delegates to a city council the arbitrary and unfettered authority to decide where a business may be located, without establishing reasonable standards applicable to all property owners, cannot stand. To satisfy due process and equal protection, regulations must contain reasonably certain standards and criteria to ensure uniform application and prevent decisions based on whim or caprice. The Ocala ordinance is devoid of any standards, leaving the approval of a new liquor store to the unbridled discretion of the Mayor and City Council. The mere opportunity for arbitrary discrimination, not just its actual exercise, is sufficient to render such an ordinance constitutionally vulnerable.
Dissenting - Smith, Judge
No, the ordinance is constitutional. The regulation of alcoholic beverage sales is a privilege, not a right, which affords the legislature greater discretion. The precedent set in Permenter v. Younan established that a city council can reserve for itself the power to approve new liquor business locations on a case-by-case basis without expressly stated standards, as long as there is no proof of arbitrary and discriminatory prohibition in fact.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the fundamental principle that government bodies cannot exercise power arbitrarily, even in a highly regulated industry like alcohol sales. It solidifies the requirement that zoning and licensing ordinances must contain clear, ascertainable standards to be constitutionally valid under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The ruling limits a municipality's ability to use ad hoc legislative approval as a gatekeeping mechanism for new businesses, thereby protecting property and economic rights from unpredictable and potentially discriminatory government action.
