Sheppard v. Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, 447 S.W.3d 614

Sheppard applied for a retail liquor-store permit after Clark County voted to allow alcohol sales.
The Board conditionally granted the permit on Oct 16, 2011 with specified premises changes.
The conditions had a 12-month deadline, with two extensions, until Dec 31, 2012.
Inspections in Jan 2013 revealed ongoing disarray: buffet in center, no shelving, missing telephone, partial partitions.
The Board held a hearing Feb 20, 2013 and canceled the conditional permit for delay and false statements; circuit court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Authority to conditionally grant permits	Sheppard lacked power for conditional grants	Board has authority to set qualifications and impose conditions	Yes, Board could conditionally grant and impose conditions
Authority to revoke vs director	Only Director can revoke issued permits	Board may review director actions and revoke where appropriate	Board could review and cancel the conditional grant; issuance not required to revoke
Notice and preservation	Notice issues not preserved	Issue not properly preserved on appeal	Not preserved for review; court did not decide on merits of notice argument
Substantial evidence for cancellation	No sufficient evidence of failure to open or false statements	Evidence showed failure to open within 12 months and false statements	There was substantial evidence supporting cancellation

Brookshire v. Adcock, 2009 Ark. 207, 307 S.W.3d 22 (Ark. 2009) (agency power inferred from statute; deference to agency interpretation)
City of Fort Smith v. Tate, 311 Ark. 405, 844 S.W.2d 356 (Ark. 1993) (statutory readings harmonized to determine agency authority)
Files v. Arkansas State Highway & Transportation Dep’t, 325 Ark. 291, 925 S.W.2d 404 (Ark. 1996) (substantial evidence standard for agency decisions)
Wacaser v. Insurance Commissioner, 321 Ark. 143, 900 S.W.2d 191 (Ark. 1995) (substantial evidence approval and agency discretion)