Kopp v. State

595 P.2d 309, 100 Idaho 160, 1979 Ida. LEXIS 416
CourtIdaho Supreme Court
DecidedMay 23, 1979
Docket12674
StatusPublished
Cited by29 cases

This text of 595 P.2d 309 (Kopp v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kopp v. State, 595 P.2d 309, 100 Idaho 160, 1979 Ida. LEXIS 416 (Idaho 1979).

Opinions

McFADDEN, Justice.

This appeal challenges a district court judgment upholding the issuance of a 16th retail liquor license for use in the city and county of Twin Falls, Idaho. The principal issue raised is whether the state liquor license in question was issued in accordance with the legal requisites of I.C. § 23-903. Since our resolution of this issue is dispositive, other issues raised by the parties will not be discussed.

The facts of this case are uncontroverted. I.C. § 23 — 903 limits the number of retail liquor licenses that can be issued. It provides in relevant part as follows:

License to retail liquor. — The director of the department of law enforcement is hereby empowered, authorized, and directed to issue licenses to qualified applicants, as herein provided, whereby the licensee shall be authorized and permitted to sell liquor by the drink at retail and, [162]*162upon the issuance of such license, the licensee therein named shall be authorized to sell liquor at retail by the drink, but only in accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by the director and the provisions of this act. No license shall be issued for the sale of liquor on any premises outside the incorporated limits of any city except as provided in this act and the number of licenses so issued for any city shall not exceed one (1) license for each one thousand five hundred (1,500) of population of said city or fraction thereof, as established in the last preceding census, or any subsequent special census conducted by the United States bureau of the census

(Emphasis added.)

On November 15, 1976, the State Department of Law Enforcement issued a 16th retail liquor license for use in the city and county of Twin Falls to defendant-respondent L. James Koutnik. This license was issued on the basis of a 1973 population figure for the City of Twin Falls, prepared by the United States Bureau of the Census pursuant to 13 U.S.C. § 181 (1954).1 Mr. Jean Milar, the City manager of Twin Falls, obtained the 1973 population figure from a document entitled “Population Estimates and Projections” which was prepared by the United States Bureau of the Census for revenue-sharing purposes. The document indicates that the population of the City of Twin Falls increased by 1,702 people between April 1, 1970 and July 1, 1973.

Plaintiffs-appellants Venita Beglan and Eugene Kopp are residents of the city and county of Twin Falls, Idaho. On November 23, 1976, they filed a complaint in district court alleging that the issuance of a 16th liquor license for the city of Twin Falls violated I.C. § 23-903 because it was not based upon a census conducted by the United States Bureau of the Census. Appellants’ amended complaint asked the district court to revoke the state liquor license issued to respondent Koutnik and to enjoin the State Department of Law Enforcement from reissuing the same until a proper determination of census was made.2

After a full hearing, the district court concluded that the issuance of a state liquor license to L. James Koutnik was supported by census figures provided by the United States Bureau of the Census, and such issuance and the use and operation thereunder was legally permissible pursuant to I.C, § 23-903. Judgment was entered in favor of respondents and this appeal followed.

This is the first time this court has been called upon to interpret that portion of I.C. § 23-903 which limits the number of available liquor licenses according to population. The statutory language in question reads:

. the number of licenses so issued for any city shall hot exceed one (1) license for each one thousand five hundred (1,500) of population of said city or fraction thereof, as established in the last preceding census, or any subsequent special census conducted by the United States bureau of the census

I.C. § 23-903 (Emphasis added.)

Appellants claim the above language requires retail liquor licenses to be issued on the basis of a federal decennial census or a federal “special census” as that term is defined in 13 U.S.C. § 196 (1976). That statute provides in relevant part as follows:

The Secretary may conduct special censuses for the government of any State, or of any county, city, or other political subdivision within a State, . . . upon payment to the Secretary of the actual or estimated cost of each such special census. The results of each such special census shall be designated “Official Cen[163]*163sus Statistics”.' These statistics may be used in the manner provided by applicable law.

13 U.S.C. § 196 (1976). Respondents, on the other hand, contend that the Department of Law Enforcement’s interpretation of I.C. § 23 — 903 is correct. According to the Department of Law Enforcement, the legislative intent of I.C. § 23-903 was to allow retail liquor licenses to be issued on the basis of current population data from the United States Bureau of the Census, whether it be decennial, biennial or annual. Under the Department’s interpretation of I.C. § 23 — 903, municipal population can be established by reference to an official report prepared under the authority of the Secretary of Commerce, United States Bureau of the Census, and so certified.

It is the general rule that an agency charged with the duty of administering an act is impliedly clothed with power to construe it as a necessary precedent to administrative action. Oklahoma Real Estate Commission v. National Business & Property Exchange, 238 F.2d 606, 610 (10th Cir. 1956); Clark County School District v. Local Government Employee Management Relations Board, 90 Nev. 442, 530 P.2d 114 (1974); Washington Township of Nemaha County v. Hart, 168 Kan. 650, 215 P.2d 180 (1950); Bodinson Manufacturing Co. v. California Employment Comm’n, 17 Cal.2d 321, 109 P.2d 935 (1941). The Department of Law Enforcement is responsible for administering and enforcing Idaho’s Retail Sale of Liquor by the Drink Act, I.C. §§ 23-901—23-949. I.C. § 23-932 gives the director of the Department broad powers to carry out the provisions of the Act, including the power to prescribe “the proof to be furnished and the conditions to be observed in the issuance of licenses ■. . . .”

The construction given a statute by the executive and administrative officers of the State is entitled to great weight and will be followed by the Court unless there are cogent reasons for holding otherwise. McCall v. Potlatch Forests, 69 Idaho 410, 413, 208 P.2d 799 (1949); Idaho Public Utilities Comm’n v. V-1 Oil Co., 90 Idaho 415, 412 P.2d 581 (1966); Breckenridge v. Johnston,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ronda Reynolds v. Jeffrey Lunders
Idaho Court of Appeals, 2016
State v. Yager
85 P.3d 656 (Idaho Supreme Court, 2004)
Almgren v. Idaho Department of Lands
30 P.3d 958 (Idaho Supreme Court, 2001)
Hamilton Ex Rel. Hamilton v. Reeder Flying Service
21 P.3d 890 (Idaho Supreme Court, 2001)
Wilson v. State
993 P.2d 1205 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 2000)
Levin v. Idaho State Board of Medicine
987 P.2d 1028 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1999)
Idaho Potato Commission v. Russet Valley Produce, Inc.
904 P.2d 566 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1995)
Roberts v. Transportation Dept.
827 P.2d 1178 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1991)
J.R. Simplot Company, Inc. v. Idaho State Tax Commission
820 P.2d 1206 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1991)
South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Mumford
382 S.E.2d 11 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1989)
SC FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INS. CO. v. Mumford
382 S.E.2d 11 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1989)
Idaho Fair Share v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission
751 P.2d 107 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1988)
State ex rel. Stocker v. City of Laramie
737 P.2d 746 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1987)
Stroud v. Department of Labor & Industrial Services
736 P.2d 1345 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1987)
Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Service Commission
501 A.2d 1307 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1986)
Hammon v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Idaho
707 P.2d 397 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1985)
Hammon v. Farmers Insurance Group
692 P.2d 1202 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1985)
Knudson v. Boundary County School District No. 101
656 P.2d 753 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
595 P.2d 309, 100 Idaho 160, 1979 Ida. LEXIS 416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kopp-v-state-idaho-1979.