210 N.E.2d 726 (Ohio App. 6 Dist. 1964), City Club of Toledo, Inc. v. Board of Liquor Control

Citation210 N.E.2d 726, 3 Ohio App.2d 339
Opinion JudgeFESS, J.
Party NameCITY CLUB OF TOLEDO, INC. Appellant, v. BOARD OF LIQUOR CONTROL, Appellee.
AttorneyG. Mark Brown and John W. Winn, Jr., Toledo, for appellant., William B. Saxbe, Atty. Gen., and James E. Rattan, Columbus, for appellee. Mr. G. Mark Brown and Mr. John W. Winn, Jr., for appellant., Mr. William B. Saxbe, attorney general, and Mr. James E. Rattan, for appellee.
Judge PanelDEEDS and SMITH, JJ., concur.
Case DateJune 15, 1964
CourtCourt of Appeals of Ohio

Page 726

210 N.E.2d 726 (Ohio App. 6 Dist. 1964)

3 Ohio App.2d 339

CITY CLUB OF TOLEDO, INC. Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF LIQUOR CONTROL, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Lucas.

June 15, 1964

Page 727

[3 Ohio App.2d 340] G. Mark Brown and John W. Winn, Jr., Toledo, for appellant.

William B. Saxbe, Atty. Gen., and James E. Rattan, Columbus, for appellee.

FESS, Judge.

This is on appeal from a judgment of the Common Pleas Court on an appeal from an order of the Board of Liquor Control finding that the decision and order of that board is supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence and in accordance with law and that the appeal should be dismissed.

The appeal was heard upon the transcript of the proceedings before the board,

Page 728

without taking additional testimony. Appellant's application for renewal of its permit was revoked by the director for the following reasons:

'Section 4303.271 of the Revised Code of Ohio provides in part:

"The holder of a permit issued under Sections 4303.02 to 4303.23, inclusive, of the Revised Code, who files an application for the renewal of the same class of permit for the same premises, shall be entitled to the renewal thereof and the department shall renew the permit unless the department rejects for good cause any such application * * *'

'The department finds that the City Club of Toledo, Ohio, is not a club within the contemplation and meaning of Section 4301.01(14) of the Revised Code of Ohio nor a bona fide club within the contemplation and meaning of Section 4303.17 of the Revised Code of Ohio.

'The department finds that the subject applicant is not carrying on the subject business solely in the interest of dues-paying membership as required by Section 4303.17 of the Revised Code, but that the subject premises are operated in the interest of one person or a small group of persons.

'Accordingly, Application No. H 52926 is hereby refused and rejected.' [3 Ohio App.2d 341]

In the proceedings before the board it was stipulated that if the Chief of the Permit Division were called he would testify as follows:

'That the City Club of Toledo filed an application for a D-4 permit in 1957, and that it was thoroughly investigated under the procedures; at that time was found to be a bona-fide club, and was issued a permit in November, 1957; and that it was renewed in the years 1958, and 1959; after investigation by the Department determined it was a bona-fide club; and that the City Club of Toledo, according...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • 556 N.E.2d 467 (Ohio 1990), 88-2038, State ex rel. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Industrial Com'n of Ohio
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court of Ohio
    • July 3, 1990
    ...claim submitted to the commission would be governed by the statutory law in effect on the date of injury. Id. at 430, 32 O.O.2d at 550, 210 N.E.2d at 726. Since Bednar's 1982 and 1983 injuries occurred well after the October 1, 1963 effective date of the amendment to R.C. 4123.57(B), his cl......
  • 288 N.E.2d 318 (Ohio App. 10 Dist. 1972), Buckeye Bar, Inc. v. Liquor Control Commission
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals of Ohio
    • April 11, 1972
    ...is on the board to show that the permit holder has no right to a renewal. (City Club of Toledo, Inc. v. Bd. of Liquor Control (1964), 3 Ohio App.2d 339, 210 N.E.2d 726.) There is little available material to indicate just what is meant by 'good cause.' The department's regulation 12 seems t......
  • 210 N.E.2d 746 (Ohio App. 10 Dist. 1965), Kott v. Maxwell
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals of Ohio
    • August 24, 1965
    ...him under the provisions of Amended Senate Bill No. 383 in a case such as this, justice will usually be best served in the trial court. [3 Ohio App.2d 339] Therefore, the petition at this time is dismissed, but such dismissal will in no way prevent remewal of the application after the petit......
3 cases
  • 556 N.E.2d 467 (Ohio 1990), 88-2038, State ex rel. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Industrial Com'n of Ohio
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court of Ohio
    • July 3, 1990
    ...claim submitted to the commission would be governed by the statutory law in effect on the date of injury. Id. at 430, 32 O.O.2d at 550, 210 N.E.2d at 726. Since Bednar's 1982 and 1983 injuries occurred well after the October 1, 1963 effective date of the amendment to R.C. 4123.57(B), his cl......
  • 288 N.E.2d 318 (Ohio App. 10 Dist. 1972), Buckeye Bar, Inc. v. Liquor Control Commission
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals of Ohio
    • April 11, 1972
    ...is on the board to show that the permit holder has no right to a renewal. (City Club of Toledo, Inc. v. Bd. of Liquor Control (1964), 3 Ohio App.2d 339, 210 N.E.2d 726.) There is little available material to indicate just what is meant by 'good cause.' The department's regulation 12 seems t......
  • 210 N.E.2d 746 (Ohio App. 10 Dist. 1965), Kott v. Maxwell
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals of Ohio
    • August 24, 1965
    ...him under the provisions of Amended Senate Bill No. 383 in a case such as this, justice will usually be best served in the trial court. [3 Ohio App.2d 339] Therefore, the petition at this time is dismissed, but such dismissal will in no way prevent remewal of the application after the petit......