Campisi v. Liquor Control Commission
| Decision Date | 13 June 1978 |
| Citation | 175 Conn. 295,397 A.2d 1365 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Antonio CAMPISI v. LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION of the State of Connecticut. |
Thomas W. Fahey, Jr., Windsor Locks, with whom, on the brief, was William C. Leary, Windsor Locks, for appellant (plaintiff).
Timothy O. Fanning, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom, on the brief, was Carl R. Ajello, Atty. Gen., for appellee (defendant).
Before COTTER, C. J., and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO and RUBINOW, JJ.
The defendant liquor control commission on July 11, 1975, denied the plaintiff's application for a package store liquor permit for premises located in Suffield on the ground of unsuitability of place by reason of the fact that no substantial change had taken place in the area since the previous denial on April 2, 1974. The plaintiff's appeal, taken to the Court of Common Pleas from the defendant's action, was dismissed and from that judgment the plaintiff appealed to this court.
On April 2, 1974, the commission denied, for unsuitability of place, the plaintiff's request for a similar permit for the same premises and in that case the plaintiff withdrew his appeal after filing it in the Court of Common Pleas.
On the present appeal, the plaintiff seeks to show that a substantial change had taken place in the area since the commission's previous denial of his application on April 2, 1974, in which it found that the granting of the requested permit would be detrimental to the public interest. The plaintiff argues that "(t)he wealth of evidence produced at the second hearing established conclusively that many substantial changes occurred in the neighborhood since the first hearing and that the proposed premises was a suitable location for a package store." The plaintiff, however, cannot succeed in this claim since there was sufficient evidence, as shown in the record of the proceedings before the commission on the second application, to support its finding that no substantial change had taken place in the area since the previous denial.
The function of the court in reviewing the commission's denial of a permit for the premises is not to reach its own conclusions upon the subordinate facts but only to determine whether the conclusion of the commission on such facts is unreasonable or illogical. Hoffman v. Kelly,138 Conn. 614, 617, 88 A.2d 382. Courts are bound by the findings of subordinate facts and reasonable conclusions of fact made by an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Connecticut Light and Power Co. v. Department of Public Utility Control
...the agency's findings of basic fact and whether the conclusions drawn from those facts are reasonable. Campisi v. Liquor Control Commission, 175 Conn. 295, 296, 397 A.2d 1365 (1978); Almada v. Administrator, 137 Conn. 380, 391-92, 77 A.2d 765 (1951). "Substantial evidence" exists if the adm......
-
East Haven Economic Development Commission v. Department of Environmental Protection
...contained sufficient evidence which reasonably and rationally supported the decision of the commissioner. Campisi v. Liquor Control Commission, 175 Conn. 295, 296, 397 A.2d 1365. The blunt comment is that the plaintiff is asking this court to retry the case on questions of fact and issues o......
-
Williams v. Liquor Control Commission
...Conn. 537, 538, 325 A.2d 455; Aminti v. Liquor Control Commission, 144 Conn. 550, 552, 135 A.2d 595; Campisi v. Liquor Control Commission, 175 Conn. 295, 297, 397 A.2d 1365. In Biz v. Liquor Control Commission, 133 Conn. 556, 561, 53 A.2d 655, 658, this court in considering the provisions o......
-
Crescimanni v. Department of Liquor Control
...by defining certain ultimate facts which it must find to exist before taking the prescribed action." Campisi v. Liquor Control Commission, 175 Conn. 295, 296, 397 A.2d 1365 (1978). General Statutes § 30-46(a)(3) provides that the department may " 'refuse to grant permits ... if it has reaso......