Kaskela v. Daneker, 940
| Decision Date | 15 February 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 940,940 |
| Citation | 76 R.I. 405,71 A.2d 510 |
| Parties | KASKELA v. DANEKER, Liquor Control Adm'r. M. P |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
William G. Tajra, Pawtucket, for petitioner.
William E. Powers, Attorney General, Benjamin Winicour, Providence, for respondent.
This is a petition for a writ of certiorari directed to the respondent in his capacity as state liquor control administrator, hereinafter sometimes referred to as administrator, seeking to quash his decision sustaining the action of the board of license commissioners of the town of Glocester in this state denying petitioner's application for a class B liquor license for certain premises described as the 'Arrowhead Restaurant' and located on Chopmist Hill road in the village of Chepachet in said town. Pursuant to the writ the papers have been certified to this court.
From the record before the administrator, on which his disputed decision was reached, the following facts appear. The petitioner herein had filed a previous application for a similar license for the same premises, which had been denied by the local board on January 17, 1949. On appeal to the administrator, this denial was affirmed. The second application which was heard before the local board on June 10, 1949 was also denied, the decision of the board reading as follows: 'Voted, that the application of Frances E. Kaskela, for a Class B beverage license to apply at the Arrowhead Restaurant, Chopmist Hill Road, Glocester, being a reapplication, the original remonstrances not having [been] withdrawn, and being within the same license year, said application is hereby denied.'
On appeal to the administrator, no witnesses were presented by either side, both parties resting on the record. In affirming the action of the local board the administrator pointed out that the application under consideration by him was for the same license year and that it was not necessary for the remonstrants to appear again; that their objection had already been voiced against the granting of the license for that license year; that it was then incumbent upon the petitioner to show such a change of circumstances as to warrant further consideration of the application for a license for the same premises; that it was within the discretionary power of the local board to deny the license based upon the fact that no change in circumstances had been shown; and that he was faced with the same situation, since no new testimony was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green Point Liquors, Inc. v. McConaghy
...DBR on appeal are reviewed de novo. Tedford, et al. v. Reynolds, 87 R.I. 335, 340, 141 A 264, 267 (R.I. 1958) (citing Kaskela v. Daneker, 76 R.I. 405, 407, 71 A.2d 510, 511 (R.I. 1950)) ("the power of review vested in the liquor control administrator is not limited to a mere review of error......
-
Green Point Liquors, Inc. v. McConaghy
...DBR on appeal are reviewed de novo. Tedford, et al. v. Reynolds, 87 R.I. 335, 340, 141 A 264, 267 (R.I. 1958) (citing Kaskela v. Daneker, 76 R.I. 405, 407, 71 A.2d 510, 511 (R.I. 1950)) ("the power of review vested in the liquor control administrator is not limited to a mere review of error......
-
Green Point Liquors, Inc. v. McConaghy
...DBR on appeal are reviewed de novo. Tedford, et al. v. Reynolds, 87 R.I. 335, 340, 141 A 264, 267 (R.I. 1958) (citing Kaskela v. Daneker, 76 R.I. 405, 407, 71 A.2d 510, 511 (R.I. 1950)) ("the power of review vested in the liquor control administrator is not limited to a mere review of error......
-
Green Point Liquors, Inc. v. McConaghy
...DBR on appeal are reviewed de novo. Tedford, et al. v. Reynolds, 87 R.I. 335, 340, 141 A 264, 267 (R.I. 1958) (citing Kaskela v. Daneker, 76 R.I. 405, 407, 71 A.2d 510, 511 (R.I. 1950)) ("the power of review vested in the liquor control administrator is not limited to a mere review of error......