Meyer v. Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enforcement Commission
66 O.B.A.J. 896, 890 P.2d 1361, 1995 OK CIV APP 11 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A business entity not expressly permitted by the state constitution to hold a retail package store license, such as a Limited Liability Company (LLC), is ineligible to do so when the constitutional framework's discernible purpose is to impose personal responsibility on licensees, a purpose contrary to the limited liability nature of an LLC.
Facts:
- Wanda L. Meyer was the holder of an Oklahoma retail package store license.
- In 1992, the Oklahoma Legislature passed the Oklahoma Limited Liability Company Act, creating a new form of business entity.
- The Oklahoma Constitution, enacted prior to the existence of LLCs, stated that retail package store licenses could be issued to a "person or general or limited partnership."
- The Constitution also explicitly prohibited corporations, business trusts, and secret partnerships from holding such licenses.
- Meyer desired to hold her retail package store license as an LLC.
Procedural Posture:
- Wanda L. Meyer petitioned the Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enforcement Commission (ABLE) for a declaratory ruling that she could hold her license as an LLC.
- ABLE, acting as the administrative body of first instance, denied the petition.
- Meyer appealed ABLE's decision to the district court.
- The district court reversed ABLE's ruling, concluding an LLC was eligible to hold the license.
- ABLE, as the appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the Oklahoma Court of Appeals; Meyer is the appellee.
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 the Oklahoma Constitution, by exclusively naming individuals and partnerships as eligible licensees, prohibit a Limited Liability Company (LLC) from holding a retail package store license?
Opinions:
Majority - Stubblefield, J.
Yes, the Oklahoma Constitution prohibits a Limited Liability Company (LLC) from holding a retail package store license. The court reasoned that while the constitution does not explicitly mention LLCs, its affirmative grant of eligibility only to individuals and partnerships implies the exclusion of other business forms. The court inferred that the evident purpose of the constitutional provisions was to assign personal responsibility for compliance with liquor laws. Because the primary feature of an LLC is to limit the liability of its members, allowing an LLC to hold a license would shield its members from the personal responsibility and accountability the constitution sought to impose, thereby frustrating the purpose of the law.
Analysis:
This decision exemplifies a purposive approach to constitutional interpretation, where the court looks beyond the literal text to the underlying intent of the framers. It establishes that the creation of a new business entity by statute does not automatically grant it eligibility to participate in a heavily regulated industry governed by specific constitutional limitations. The ruling solidifies the principle that if a constitution enumerates permissible categories, that list may be interpreted as exclusive, especially when a new, unmentioned entity type would undermine the regulatory scheme's fundamental purpose, such as ensuring personal accountability in alcohol sales.
