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

The case concerns the transfer of a liquor license by the Alcohol and Gaming Division of New Mexico to a new location in Albuquerque. The transfer was opposed by a neighborhood group, Concerned Residents for Neighborhood, Inc., on the grounds that the new location was within 300 feet of a daycare center, which they argued qualified as a "school" under state liquor regulations. The hearing officer determined that the daycare was not a school due to its lack of certification and accreditation, and the transfer was approved (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Alcohol and Gaming Division, September 1987: A hearing officer determined that the daycare was not a school and approved the liquor license transfer (para 3).
• City of Albuquerque Administrative Hearing: The city's hearing officer also approved the transfer, finding no detriment to the community and agreeing that the daycare was not a school (para 4).
• District Court (Suit 1): The residents filed suit seeking to prohibit the transfer. The court dismissed the Director of the Alcohol and Gaming Division from the case due to improper venue and issued an alternative writ of prohibition against the city's hearing officer (para 4).
• District Court (Suit 2): The residents filed a second suit against the Director after a new venue statute was enacted. The court allowed the residents to amend their pleadings to seek a writ of mandamus and issued the writ, finding that the daycare was a school and that the Director acted outside his authority in approving the transfer (paras 5-7).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellants (Director and Old Town Liquor Shoppe, Inc.): Argued that the district court erred in issuing the writ of mandamus, as the Director had already performed his ministerial duty by approving the transfer. They contended that the proper remedy for the residents was a writ of certiorari, not mandamus, and that the district court improperly allowed new evidence (paras 8-9, 13-15).
• Respondents (Concerned Residents for Neighborhood, Inc.): Claimed that the Director had a nondiscretionary duty to disapprove the transfer because the daycare was a school within 300 feet of the liquor store. They argued that mandamus was the only available remedy and that the Director's actions were procedurally improper (paras 8-9, 16).

Legal Issues

• Was the issuance of a writ of mandamus by the district court proper?
• Did the district court err in allowing the presentation of new evidence during the mandamus hearing?
• Was a writ of certiorari the appropriate remedy for reviewing the Director's decision?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision and quashed the writ of mandamus (para 19).

Reasons

Per Bivins J. (Apodaca and Chavez JJ. concurring):

• The court held that mandamus was improper because the Director had already performed his ministerial duty by approving the transfer, and the residents were essentially seeking a review of the merits of the Director's decision rather than compelling a ministerial act (paras 9-10).
• Mandamus is not appropriate where factual disputes exist, as in this case regarding whether the daycare qualified as a school. The district court erred in making independent findings of fact contrary to the administrative hearing officers' determinations (paras 12-13).
• The proper remedy for the residents was a writ of certiorari, which allows for judicial review of administrative decisions. The residents abandoned this remedy during the district court proceedings, leaving mandamus as an improper substitute (paras 14-16).
• The court emphasized that whole record review of administrative decisions should be based on the evidence presented during the administrative proceedings. The district court erred in allowing new evidence and making findings inconsistent with the administrative record (paras 13, 18).
• Substantial evidence supported the administrative finding that the daycare was not a school under the liquor regulations, and the Director's approval of the transfer was within his authority (paras 18-19).