dissenting.
The trial court should have issued a preliminary injunction because the requirements for a preliminary injunction did exist. I therefore respectfully dissent for the following reasons:
1. Independent Hearing Examiner.
The City should have appointed an independent hearing examiner to hear this matter. The Minnesota Supreme Court and this court noted in other circumstances reluctance to uphold the actions of governmental bodies exercising “the three-part role of prosecutor, judge and jury.” Ganyo v. Independent School District No. 832, 311 N.W.2d 497, 499 n. 2 (Minn.1981); see Schmidt v. Independent School District No. 1, 349 N.W.2d 563, 567 (Minn.Ct.App.1984).
Appellant’s family has operated Miller’s Bar for forty years. The revocation of appellant’s nonintoxicating liquor license will destroy the business and accompanying good will and deprive appellant of his sole means of support. This is a significant deprivation requiring the appointment of an independent hearing examiner. Failure to appoint an independent hearing examiner in this matter was a violation of due process. See Hymanson v. City of St. Paul, 329 N.W.2d 324, 329 (Minn.1983) (Scott, J., dissenting).1
2. Irreparable Harm.
The majority’s reliance upon Miller v. Foley, 317 N.W.2d 710 (Minn.1982), is misplaced. Miller did not hold the destruction of a business enterprise and loss of accompanying good will is not irreparable harm. Miller held the loss of employment is not an irreparable injury. See 317 N.W.2d at 712-13. The cases cited in Miller, which are relied upon in the majority opinion, also dealt with employment situations. See id. at 712. The rationale underlying these cases was “the equity policy against enforcing personal service contracts.” Id. These cases and their rationale are completely inappropriate as applied to this matter.
The destruction of a business enterprise is irreparable harm. E.g., Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, 272 Minn. 264, 137 N.W.2d 314 (1965). Courts have issued preliminary injunctions to protect businesses from adverse governmental actions. See, e.g., Geiger v. City of Eagan, 618 F.2d 26 (8th Cir.1980).
3.Likelihood of Success on the Merits.
I also disagree with the majority’s. conclusion regarding appellant’s likelihood of success on the merits. The record indicates that much of the evidence presented to the City Council was prepared specifically for that hearing, although the complained of incidents purportedly happened as long ago as 1982. The record indicates appellant was not informed of police complaints and copies of police reports were never given him.
Most of the evidence presented to the Council appears to have been vague recollections made by officers who did not make contemporaneous records, but who had prepared reports only in anticipation of the license revocation hearing. Given the business existence in the community of over forty years and the paucity of the City’s evidence justifying revocation, I believe appellant presented a sufficient showing of a likelihood of success on the merits.
*8144.The burden to the public welfare from the issuance of a temporary injunction is far outweighed by the harm appellant will suffer. See Dahlberg, 272 Minn. at 276-77, 137 N.W.2d at 322-23. I would remand this matter to the trial court with instructions to issue a temporary injunction pending resolution of the merits of the main action.
RANDALL and LESLIE, JJ., concur in the dissent of POPOVICH, C.J.
. Although procedures governing nonintoxicating liquor licenses are distinguished from intoxicating liquor licenses, the principle of equal protection under the law requires both types of licenses to be treated similarly. The interests at stake in the revocation of a nonintoxicating liquor license are no less than an intoxicating license as this matter demonstrates. See generally Glassman v. Miller, 356 N.W.2d 655, 656 (Minn.1984).