Greenblatt v. Martin

WOOD (Fred B.), J. pro tem.

*

The State Director of Alcoholic Beverage Control has appealed from a judgment of the superior court which (1) set aside an order and decision of the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board, (2) ordered the Director of Alcoholic Bevérage Control to reinstate petitioner Greenblatt’s license at the Aloha Club, 145 Eddy Street, San Francisco, and take no further action in this matter, and (3) directed the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate.

After an administrative hearing the department’s hearing officer recommended findings against the licensee upon all four counts of the accusation, and revocation in respect to each of the counts. The department adopted these recommendations except as to Count IV, which it dismissed.

[789]

Upon the licensee’s appeal to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board, the department’s decision was affirmed as to Counts II and III but reversed as to Count I.

The licensee then applied to the superior court for review pursuant to the sanction of the provisions of section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The case was heard upon the record of the proceedings before the department and the appeals board, resulting in the judgment above described.

In the case of a statewide agency which exercises judicial functions conferred directly upon it by the Constitution, as does the agency here involved, the separation of powers clause of the Constitution does not apply. In such a case the trial court’s power of review is governed by the “substantial evidence” rule as used in civil adversary litigation.

(Martin

v.

Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board,

52 Cal.2d 238, 246 [340 P.2d 1] ;

Marini

v.

Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control,

177 Cal.App.2d 785, 786-787 [2 Cal.Rptr. 714].) Our examination of the record convinces us that there is substantial evidence in support of the board’s order and decision and that the judgment should be reversed.