Nightclub operator petitioned for certiorari review in the superior court of mayor’s sanction of operator for violating provisions of city’s alcoholic beverages ordinance.
The Superior Court reversed the mayor’s decision. City applied for discretionary appeal, and the Court of Appeals granted the application.
The Court of Appeals held that evidence was insufficient to support mayor’s decision to sanction nightclub operator for violating provisions of city’s alcoholic beverages ordinance.
Evidence was insufficient to support mayor’s decision to sanction nightclub operator for violating provisions of city’s alcoholic beverages ordinance, in proceeding following operator’s petition for certiorari review of mayor’s sanction, though city argued evidence supported mayor’s decision because operator violated provisions listed in due cause letter; it was mayor’s written decision to sanction operator and the reasons stated in that written decision that were under review rather than the recommendation of the license review board or the allegations in the due cause letter, and city did not argue that record supported mayor’s finding of violations of provisions cited in her letter.