D.L. Lack Corp. v. Commission
944 N.E.2d 746
Ohio Ct. App.2010Background
- Lack has held a D-5-6 liquor permit for Don’s Glenway Gate in Cincinnati since 2000.
- Cincinnati objected to renewal on April 16, 2008 for disregard of laws and potential substantial interference with neighborhood.
- The division held a three‑day hearing and denied renewal on the objections in a February 27, 2009 notice.
- Lack appealed to the Liquor Control Commission and moved to reverse for purported R.C. 119.09 procedural errors.
- The Commission held an evidentiary hearing on Lack’s appeal on October 9, 2009 and affirmed the division’s denial.
- The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas affirmed the Commission’s order on March 30, 2010; Lack appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was R.C. 119.09 required for the division’s adjudication here? | Lack argues the division failed to serve the examiner’s report and the order as required. | Division/Commission contend R.C. 119.09 applies only to adjudication hearings under 119.01–119.13 and not to this appeal path. | R.C. 119.09 not applicable; exception for appeals to the commission applies. |
| Did the evidence support denial under R.C. 4303.292(A)(2)(c) that the permit premises substantially interfered with neighborhood decency, etc.? | Lack contends the record shows only limited disturbances and fails to prove substantial interference. | The record, including police testimony and neighbor evidence, shows substantial interference. | Yes; substantial evidence supported the R.C. 4303.292(A)(2)(c) ground. |
| Did the evidence also support denial under R.C. 4303.292(A)(1)(b) for operating the business with disregard for laws? | Lack argues no proof of disregard by Lack personally. | Evidence showed underage sales, drug activity, and indifference to drug problems. | Yes; substantial evidence supported the R.C. 4303.292(A)(1)(b) ground. |
Key Cases Cited
- Our Place, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 63 Ohio St.3d 570 (1992) ( rehability, probative, substantial standard of review)
- Asylum, Inc. v. Liquor Control Comm., 167 Ohio App.3d 498 (2006) (focus on location of premises under 4303.292(A)(2)(c))
- Marciano v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 2003-Ohio-2023 (Ohio App.3d) (reciprocal precedent on 4303.292(A)(2)(c) causation not required for control by holder)
- 2971, Inc. v. Liquor Control Comm., 2005-Ohio-3372 (Ohio App.3d) (location-centered analysis under 4303.292(A)(2)(c))
- Colon v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 2009-Ohio-5550 (Ohio App.3d) (upholds review of grounds under 4303.292)