Rosales v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control

California Court of Appeal Jul 1, 1959 No. Civ. 18371Published

Before: Draper

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control's revocation of a liquor license was supported by substantial evidence and did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Because the revocation was ordered severally and separately for each count, the court affirmed the decision based on the sufficiency of evidence for the second count alone.

Issues

Whether the Appeals Board and the court are required to weigh evidence and determine witness credibility under the substantial evidence rule.
Whether there was substantial evidence to support the finding that the premises were used as a disorderly house.
Whether the revocation of the liquor license constituted an excessive penalty or an abuse of discretion.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is now settled that the quoted language signifies “no more than the adoption by the Legislature ... of the ‘substantial evidence’ rule as generally applied in judicial proceedings in this state ...””

“The evidence thus is ample to sustain the order of revocation as to Count II.”

“But the fixing of penalty is vested in the discretion of the department, and its determination will be disturbed only where there is a clear abuse of discretion.”

DRAPER, J.

Accusation filed by respondent Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control charged in Count I that the premises operated by petitioners under an on-sale liquor license were a resort for prostitutes, and in Count II that the premises were used as a disorderly house. A hearing officer took evidence, found both charges to be true, and recommended revocation on each of the counts ‘1 severally and separately.” The department adopted this recommendation as its decision. The Alcoholic Beverage Appeals Board affirmed. The superior court issued alternative writ of mandate but, after hearing, discharged that writ and denied peremptory writ. Petitioners appeal.

Petitioners argue that the Appeals Board is required to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of witnesses. Impliedly, they argue that a like function is to be performed by this court. The argument is based upon the provisions of Constitution and codes providing for review to determine whether the “findings are supported by substantial evidence in the light of the whole record” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 23084; Cal. Const., art. XX, § 22; Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5). Appellants point to construction of comparable statutory language by the United States Supreme Court.

(Universal Camera Corp.

National Labor Relations Board,

340 U.S. 474 [71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456].) Any question as to the California rule has been resolved since filing of the briefs in our case. It is now settled that the quoted language signifies “no more than the adoption by the Legislature ... of the ‘substantial evidence’ rule as generally applied in judicial proceedings in this state ...”

(Martin

Alcoholic Beverage etc. Appeals Board,

52 Cal.2d 238 [340 P.2d 1].)

Examined in the light of this rule, the record made before the hearing officer and reviewed by the superior court reveals substantial evidence to support the finding that appellants permitted their premises to be used as a disorderly house to which people resorted for purposes injurious to the public

[626]

Rosales v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control

AI Brief

DRAPER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief