AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Western Refining Southwest, Inc. sought to transfer a liquor license to a new location near an elementary school and a Head Start facility. The City of Santa Fe denied the transfer, citing a violation of the Liquor Control Act's distance requirement from schools. The Alcohol and Gaming Division approved the transfer, applying its own measurement method. The district court reversed this approval, leading to an appeal. (paras 2-6)

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County: Reversed the Alcohol and Gaming Division's approval of the liquor license transfer. (para 6)
• Court of Appeals of New Mexico: This decision.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (The City of Santa Fe): Argued that the proposed site was within 300 feet of a school, violating NMSA 1978, Section 60-6B-10, and posed a threat to public health and safety. (para 4)
• Defendants-Appellants (Director of the Alcohol and Gaming Division and Western Refining Southwest, Inc.): Contended that the location was not less than 300 feet from a school when measured using the Division's regulation and that there was not substantial evidence supporting the City's finding of a threat to public health and safety. (para 5)

Legal Issues

• Whether the Division's regulation for measuring the distance between a school and a licensed premise conflicts with the Liquor Control Act's method of measurement. (para 1)
• Whether the Division's approval of the liquor license transfer was appropriate based on its calculation of the distance to the school. (para 8)

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, affirming the Director's approval of Western's application to transfer a liquor license to 5741 Airport Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico. (para 23)

Reasons

• Per Michael D. Bustamante, J. (Linda M. Vanzi, J., and J. Miles Hanisee, J., concurring): The court found that the Division's regulation and the Director's application of it accurately reflected the Legislature's intent in the Liquor Control Act. It held that the term "property line" as it relates to a licensed premises is subject to a functional analysis similar to that applied to schools in the Hughes decision. The court concluded that the Division's method of measurement and the functional test were consistent with the statute, as evidenced by the Legislature's inaction despite being aware of the Division's methods and the Hughes holding. (paras 7-22)