The term “satisfactory”, as used in county code providing for liquor licensing, was not unconstitutionally vague where the provision was not related to any civil or criminal penalty. Additionally, Respondents did not violate Appellant’s due process rights by denying his application for a liquor license because Appellant had no cognizable property interest in or entitlement to the license. Finally, Appellant’s equal protection rights were not violated because Respondents had a rational basis for denying Appellant’s application
