5.13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. licensing ordinance. In Gopher Sales Co. v. City of Austin, 246 Minn. 514, 520, 75 N.W.2d 780, 784 (1956) the state supreme court stated: No person can acquire a vested right to continue, when once licensed, in a business, trade, or occupation, which is subject to control and regulation under the proper exercise of a municipality's police power. As we stated in State v. Minneapolis-St. Paul M. A. Commission: "A license confers upon the licensee the right to engage in the licensed business only for the term specified in the license. A prior expired license is functus officio and confers no rights upon the licensee named therein, except in certain cases where by statute it entitled him to a renewal upon compliance with specified conditions." [footnote and citations omitted] Although Gopher Sales was decided nearly forty years ago, it has been cited with approval in several more recent cases. See, e. g., Voettiner v. Commissioner of Education, 376 N.W.2d/144, 448 (Minn. App. 1985)(no vested right to a license to teach medical office procedures). B. Compelling State Interest Government has a compelling state interest in the regulation of businesses and occupations. The requirement of a license as a condition precedent to the privilege of carrying on the business is a legitimate exercise of the police powers of the state. See Pilla v. American Bar Association, 407 F. Supp. 451 (D. Minn. 1975) affd 542 F.2d 56 (8th Cir. 1976);Franklin Theatre Corp v. City of Minneapolis, 293 Minn. 519, 198 N.W.2d 558 (1972). The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that where local legislative action is within the scope of the police powers and where the enactment presents fairly debatable questions as to its reasonableness, wisdom, and propriety, the determination of such questions is not for the courts, but rather for the local legislative body. See State v. United • Parking Stations, 235 Minn. 147, 50 N.W.2d 50 (1951). 3