Daley v. Los Laureles, Inc.

Decision Date16 September 1974
Docket NumberNo. 57818,57818
PartiesRichard J. DALEY, Mayor and Local Liquor Control Commissioner of the City of Chicago, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOS LAURELES, INC., Applicant, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Richard L. Curry, Corp. Counsel of the City of Chicago, Chicago (William R. Quinlan, Robert R. Retke, Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.

Manuel Reyes, Chicago, for Los Laureles.

HALLETT, Justice:

The plaintiff, as Local Liquor Control Commissioner, refused to grant a retail liquor license to the applicant, Los Laureles, Inc. On appeal, the License Appeal Commission, after a Trial de novo, reversed the Commissioner's order and, on administrative review, the circuit court affirmed that reversal. The Commissioner has appealed.

The defendants have not seen fit to appear as appellees or to file briefs. Where, as here, an appellee has not filed a brief in the reviewing court, it may reverse without considering the case in detail but reversal is not required and the reviewing court may if it chooses consider and determine the case on its merits. (2 I.L.P. Appeal and Error, ch. 10, § 560; Perez v. Janota (1969), 107 Ill.App.2d 90, 246 N.E.2d 42; Daley v. Jack's Tivoli Liquor Lounge, Inc. (1969), 118 Ill.App.2d 264--275, 254 N.E.2d 814; Lynch v. Wolverine Ins. Co. (1970), 126 Ill.App.2d 192, 193, 261 N.E.2d 466; People v. Giannopoulos, (Ill.App.1974), 314 N.E.2d 237.) We elect to follow the latter course here.

The Commissioner contends: 1) that, on the very sketchy evidence presented to him, he properly refused to issue the license applied for; and 2) that, on an appeal from his action, 'the only issue * * * is the propriety of * * * (his) decision on the evidence placed before him by the applicant,' and that the Commission therefore 'went beyond the bounds of the function defined in the statute' when it permitted the president of the applicant 'to directly supply the License Appeal Commission with detailed data on the finances of Los Laureles, Inc.' and, based on that data, reversed the Commissioner's action.

We disagree with the Commissioner's second contention and affirm; thus rendering the first contention moot.

The Illinois Liquor Control Act, (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 43, pars. 120(15), 123), defines who may and may not be granted a retail liquor license, and, in sections 111 through 114, empowers local liquor control commissioners to administer said act and to grant, refuse or suspend licenses. In section 153, two very different types of appeals from orders of such local commissioners are provided. From certain orders, a Trial de novo before the appeal commission is provided. From others, only a 'review' of the record before the local commissioner, at which 'no new or additional evidence shall be admitted or considered,' is provided.

Insofar as is pertinent here (an appeal from an order of a local liquor control commissioner in a city of 500,000 or more Refusing to grant a license) the statute (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 43, par. 153), in pertinent parts, provides as follows:

'In the event such appeal is from an order of a local liquor control commissioner of a city, village or incorporated town Of 500,000 or more inhabitants, granting or Refusing to grant a license or refusing for more than 30 days to grant a hearing upon a complaint to revoke or suspend a license, The matter of the propriety of such order or action Shall be tried de novo by the license appeal commission as expeditiously as circumstances permit.

In any trial de novo hearing before the State Commission or license appeal commission the local liquor control commissioner shall be entitled to 10 days notice and to be heard. All such trial de novo hearings shall be open to the public and the Illinois Liquor Control Commission and the license appeal commission shall reduce all evidence offered thereto to writing.

If after trial de novo hearing or review as provided herein, the State Commission or the license appeal commission (as the case may be) shall decide that the license has been improperly issued, denied, revoked, suspended or refused to be revoked or suspended or a hearing to revoke or suspend has been improperly refused, it shall enter an order in conformity with such findings, which order shall be in writing.

A certified copy of the order shall be transmitted to the particular local liquor control commissioner and it shall be the duty of the local liquor control commissioner to take such action as may be necessary to conform with the order.

In any trial de novo hearing before the State Commission or the license appeal commission, the licensee shall submit to examination and produce books and records material to the business conducted under the license in like manner as before the local liquor control commissioner. * * *' (Emphasis ours.)

Where the appeal is from the order of a local liquor control commissioner of a...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT