Hooda Corp. v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, 370 S.W.3d 458

Hooda Corporation, d/b/a Esters Chevron, sought renewal of its wine and beer off-premise permit with the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission.
City of Irving protested, alleging Hooda’s sale location violated the city's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 1144, as amended, by being within 300 feet of a private school.
The City measured Hooda’s distance to Holy Family of Nazareth School and concluded Hooda was within the forbidden zone; an aerial photo was admitted as evidence.
Hooda contended the applicable measurement method was the door-to-door church method because the school and church were on the same property, and argued the ordinance was vague as applied here.
The county judge denied Hooda’s renewal, finding Hooda’s property line was within 300 feet of the school and that renewal would threaten the general welfare.
The district court affirmed, finding substantial evidence supports the county judge’s order; Hooda appealed challenging the measurement method and sufficiency of evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was substantial evidence supporting the denial based on proper measurement.	Hooda argues the wrong measurement method was used (church method) and the ordinance is vague.	City asserts the school-measurement method governs and evidence shows Hooda within 300 feet of a school.	Yes; substantial evidence supports denial using the school-based measurement.

Four Stars Food Mart, Inc. v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Comm’n, 923 S.W.2d 266 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1996) (substantial-evidence standard for agency decisions)
Blackman v. City of Big Sandy, 507 F.2d 935 (5th Cir.1975) (regulation of alcohol-location proximity to protect general welfare)
Howeth Invs., Inc. v. City of Hedwig Village, 259 S.W.3d 877 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (statutory/construction rules and distance-measurement methods)