Transfer of a liquor license; Writ of superintending control; Whether the defendant waived the right to challenge the grant of declaratory relief; Steward v. Panek; Standing; Mootness; Standards of review; The Administrative Procedures Act; J & P Mkt., Inc. v. Liquor Control Comm’n; Const. 1963, art. 6, § 28; English v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of MI; Northwestern Nat’l Cas. Co. v. Commissioner of Ins.; MI Admin. Code, R 436.1133(c); Liquor Control Commission (LCC)

Holding that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s request for superintending control and related declaratory relief under the circumstances, the court reversed and remanded for entry of summary disposition in favor of defendant-Baldwin Express. The case arose from a decision of the defendant-LCC granting Baldwin’s request for a transfer of a liquor license. The trial court ordered the LCC to immediately withdraw its approval of Baldwin’s application. Plaintiff contended on appeal that Baldwin challenged plaintiff’s request for a writ of superintending control, but failed to challenge plaintiff’s request for declaratory relief. Thus, plaintiff argued, Baldwin waived the right to challenge the trial court’s order to the extent the order granted declaratory relief. However, it was clear from the lower court record that the “two remedies plaintiff sought were inextricably linked and concerned the same underlying transaction, which is at issue in this appeal.” Further, consideration of the issue was “necessary to a proper determination of the case;” thus, the court had discretion to review the issue. As to the merits, the court concluded that the LCC exercised “its lawful discretion to interpret and apply the relevant regulatory rule.” Given that the “LCC’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious, did not violate a statute or the constitution, and was not based on improper procedure, the decision was authorized by law.” Thus, the trial court lacked “discretion to delve into the facts behind the decision reached by the LCC.”