Cahokia Sportservice, Inc. v. Illinois Liquor Control Commission
| Decision Date | 08 October 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--209,75--209 |
| Citation | 336 N.E.2d 276,32 Ill.App.3d 801 |
| Parties | CAHOKIA SPORTSERVICE, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ILLINOIS LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
William J. Scott, Atty. Gen. of Ill., Springfield (Lee D. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Springfield, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.
Robert F. Hanley, Rodney D. Joslin, Barbara S. Steiner, Chicago, John T. Roach, Roach, Keshner, & Wyss, Alton (Jenner & Block, Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellees.
This is an interlocutory appeal taken by defendant, Illinois Liquor Control Commission, from a denial of defendant's motion to dissolve a stay order issued by the circuit court of St. Clair County on April 25, 1975 and from a denial of defendant's motion to strike and dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for administrative review. Defendant raises two issues: (1) whether the court abused its discretion by refusing to apply the 'clean hands' doctrine to dissolve the stay order and to strike the complaint and (2) whether plaintiffs' complaint was insufficient to state a cause of action entitling plaintiffs to any injunctive relief whatsoever.
Before beginning our discussion of this case we wish to point out that in both the brief for the appellant and the brief for the appellees citations were made to abstract opinions of the courts of this State. Neither side, however, included in its brief a copy of the abstract opinions cited. We therefore remind these parties and all other parties who come before this court that Rule 8 of the Uniform Appellate Rules, Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 110A, sec. 908, provides:
'The opinions of the Illinois Appellate Court which have been published in abstract form only, shall not be cited in the briefs of litigants unless the entire text of said abstract opinion is appended to the brief.'
This unambiguous Rule is for the convenience of the court as well as that of the opposing party and should be complied with.
Plaintiffs, Cahokia Sportservice, Inc., Chicago Sportservice, Inc., Illinois Sportservice, Inc., and Maywood Sportservice, Inc., have each held licenses issued by the Illinois Liquor Control Commission for several years. Each of these corporations is part of a large, interrelated system of wholly owned subsidiaries or sub-subsidiaries of which Sportsystems Corporation is the parent corporation.
Prior to the organization of Sportsystems in 1970 or 1971 this system of corporations was organized under the parent Emprise Corporation. On July 10, 1972 Emprise was convicted in the United States District Court for the Central District of California for its 1966 violations of 18 U.S.C., secs. 371 and 1952. The conviction was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (United States v. Polizzi, 500 F.2d 856) and certiorari was subsequently denied by the Supreme Court (419 U.S. 1120, 95 S.Ct. 802, 42 L.Ed.2d 820).
Because of the conviction of Emprise in the federal district court, and a few other matters we need not concern ourselves with here, the Illinois Liquor Control Commission on July 18, 1973 sent Cahokia Sportservice a citation and notice of hearing to show cause why its Illinois license (which was not to expire until April 30, 1974) should not be revoked. The hearing was scheduled to be held on August 28, 1973.
The primary reason for the citation and notice of hearing sent to Cahokia Sportservice are the provisions of the Illinois Liquor Control Act found in Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 43, sec. 120(2), (4), (8), and (10), which state:
'No license of any kind issued by the State Commission or any local commission shall be issued to:
(2) A person who is not of good character and reputation in the community in which he resides;
(4) A person who has been convicted of a felony under any Federal or State law, if the Commission determines, after investigation, that such person has not been sufficiently rehabilitated to warrant the public trust;
(8) A person who at the time of application for renewal of any license issued hereunder would not be eligible for such license upon a first application;
(10) A corporation, if any officer, manager or director thereof, or any stockholder or stockholders owning in the aggregate more than 5% Of the stock of such corporation, would not be eligible to receive a license hereunder for any reason other than citizenship and residence within the political subdivision;
Sometime after sending the citation the commission decided not to proceed with that part of the citation dealing with sec. 120(2). Also thereafter, the citation was amended to include the other Illinois corporations which were part of the system and which held licenses from the Illinois Liquor Commission, namely, Chicago Sportservice, Maywood Sportservice, and Illinois Sportservice.
The commission ordered its staff to prepare a Rehabilitation Report pursuant to sec. 120(4). The report was issued February 14, 1975 and concluded that the licensees had not been sufficiently rehabilitated to warrant the public trust. Among the matters taken into account in the report was a bribery incident involving one of the licensees. The report described the incident as follows:
After the staff report was issued the licensees were ordered to, and did, respond to the report. A full hearing on the matter of the licenses was thereafter held before the Commission on March 3, 1975. Eight days later the Commission ordered the licenses of the four corporations revoked, stating that the corporations had not been sufficiently rehabilitated since the Emprise Corporation conviction.
Subsequently the four corporations, plaintiffs, filed a complaint for administrative review in the St. Clair County circuit court pursuant to Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 43, sec. 154a and ch. 110, sec. 268. Pursuant to Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 110, sec. 275(1)(a) and ch. 69, sec. 1 Et seq., plaintiffs moved for a stay of the revocation order issued by defendant commission. On April 9, 1975 the court issued an order by which the Commission order was stayed, and by which the Commission was enjoined from interfering with plaintiffs because they lacked liquor licenses, pending the conclusion of the administrative review. Thereafter defendant Commission filed its motions to dissolve the court's order and to strike the complaint, which were denied.
On this appeal the Liquor Control Commission asserts, as it did before the circuit court, that plaintiffs should have been denied the stay order because of the 'clean hands' doctrine. The Commission contends that the court in not applying that doctrine to refuse the requested stay order committed a clear abuse of discretion. The Commission bases this contention on the fact that the Maywood Sportservice bribery incident occurred while the revocation-rehabilitation hearings were in process and on the fact that Peter Varlas, the man who paid the bribe, is still an employee of this interrelated system of corporations.
It is undisputed that the circuit court under Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 110, sec. 275(1)(a) has the discretionary power to stay the decision of an administrative agency pending final disposition of the review of that decision. (Group Securities, Inc. v. Carpentier, 19 Ill.App.2d 513, 154 N.E.2d 837.) The court also has the traditional powers of a court of chancery to implement the stay until final...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commission on Medical Discipline v. Stillman
...F.2d 1159 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 437 U.S. 905, 98 S.Ct. 3091, 57 L.Ed.2d 1134 (1978); Cahokia Sportservice, Inc. v. Illinois Liq. Con. Comm'n, 32 Ill.App.3d 801, 336 N.E.2d 276 (1975). IV (A) Contrary to the conclusion reached by the Baltimore City Court, § 130(m) plainly precludes ......
-
Hayna v. Arby's, Inc.
...court. (Rosinia v. Gusmano (1980), 90 Ill.App.3d 882, 46 Ill.Dec. 299, 414 N.E.2d 21; Cahokia Sportservice, Inc. v. Illinois Liquor Control Com. (1975), 32 Ill.App.3d 801, 336 N.E.2d 276.) Accordingly, the propriety of the court's denial of defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's individu......
-
Ardt v. Illinois Dept. of Professional Regulation
...N.E.2d 573.) A court exercising special jurisdiction retains its traditional equitable power. (Cahokia Sportservice, Inc. v. Liquor Control Comm'n (1975), 32 Ill.App.3d 801, 805, 336 N.E.2d 276.) This inherent equitable power, which is derived from the historic power of equity courts, can n......
-
People ex rel. Hartigan v. Illinois Commerce Com'n
...A court's power to grant a stay is an equitable power to enforce equitable principles. Cahokia Sportservice, Inc. v. Illinois Liquor Control Comm'n (1975), 32 Ill.App.3d 801, 806, 336 N.E.2d 276. The circuit court was authorized by Rule 305(b) to grant its stay "conditioned upon such terms ......