Our Place, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm.
| Decision Date | 06 May 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-960,91-960 |
| Citation | 589 N.E.2d 1303,63 Ohio St.3d 570 |
| Parties | , 73 Ed. Law Rep. 765 OUR PLACE, INC., Appellee, v. OHIO LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Appellee Our Place, Inc. filed an application with the Ohio Department of Liquor Control for a D-5 liquor permit for premises at 14916 Euclid Avenue, East Cleveland, Ohio. After a hearing in November 1988, the director of the department denied the application on two grounds. The application was denied based on R.C. 4303.292(B)(1), because the location of the establishment would substantially and adversely affect the orderly control of a private day-care center and a private school nearby. The application was also denied based on R.C. 4303.292(A)(2)(c), because the issuance of a permit for that location would substantially interfere with the public decency, sobriety, peace or good order of the neighborhood.
Appellee appealed the director's decision to the Liquor Control Commission, which held a de novo hearing on March 8, 1989. At the hearing the department presented five witnesses who testified in opposition to the permit; these were the directors of the day-care center and the private school, a representative of the East Cleveland Board of Education, and two residents of the neighborhood. The factors discussed by these witnesses included the location of the permit premises, its proximity to the day-care center and schools, increased traffic, and the number of other liquor permits in the area. Testifying in favor of issuance were Charles Boyt, president of Our Place, Inc., a parent of a child who attended the day-care center, and two police officers. Their testimony was to the effect that Boyt does a good job of operating his other liquor permit premises.
On May 12, the commission sustained the denial of the application. Appellee then filed a notice of appeal with the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. The trial court also affirmed the decision of the Liquor Control Commission. Appellee then appealed to the court of appeals, which reversed. It is from this judgment that the commission now appeals.
Rishel, Myers & Kopech and Marc E. Myers, Columbus, for appellee.
Lee I. Fisher, Atty. Gen., Chester T. Lyman, Jr., and Kurt O. Gearhiser, Columbus, for appellant.
The issue before us is whether the court of appeals was correct in reversing the judgment of the trial court sustaining the order of the commission. An appeal from an administrative agency in Ohio is governed by R.C. 119.12, which states in pertinent part: The court of common pleas is restricted to determining whether the order is so supported.
The evidence required by R.C. 119.12 can be defined as follows: (1) "Reliable" evidence is dependable; that is, it can be confidently trusted. In order to be reliable, there must be a reasonable probability that the evidence is true. 1 (2) "Probative" evidence is evidence that tends to prove the issue in question; it must be relevant in determining the issue. 2 (3) "Substantial" evidence is evidence with some weight; it must have importance and value. 3
In this case the Director of the Department of Liquor Control denied the permit application on two grounds. First, the application was denied based on R.C. 4303.292(B)(1), because the location of the proposed permit establishment would "substantially and adversely affect or interfere with the normal, orderly conduct of the affairs" of the private school and the day-care center located nearby. Second, the application was denied based on R.C. 4303.292(A)(2)(c), because the issuance of a permit for the proposed location would result in "substantial interference with public decency, sobriety, peace or good order" of the neighborhood. The commission sustained the director's order. If either of the grounds is supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence, then the commission's decision must be upheld.
The evidence consists in the main of the testimony of witnesses at the March 8, 1989 hearing. In opposition to the permit were Geraldine McCarley, Director of the East Cleveland Child Development Center located next door to the permit premises; Patricia Baker-Brown, Director of the Independent School located nearby; Selma Gamble from the East Cleveland Board of Education, who represented an elementary school and a high school located nearby; and two residents of the neighborhood, Zakee Rashid and Edward Durden.
McCarley testified that the proposed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Blue Flame Energy Corp.
...law. To be "reliable," evidence must be dependable and true within a reasonable probability. Our Place, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm. (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 570, 571, 589 N.E.2d 1303. To be "probative," evidence must be relevant or, in other words, tend to prove the issue in question. Id......
-
Toney v. City of Dayton
...trusted.’ " Posner , 193 Ohio App.3d 211, 2011-Ohio-1370, 951 N.E.2d 476, ¶ 27, quoting Our Place, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm'n , 63 Ohio St.3d 570, 571, 589 N.E.2d 1303 (1992). To be deemed reliable, " ‘there must be a reasonable probability that the evidence is true.’ " Id. , quotin......
-
Ohio Univ. V. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm.
...carries some weight or value." Case W. Res. Univ., 76 Ohio St.3d at 178, 666 N.E.2d 1376, citing Our Place, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm. (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 570, 571, 589 N.E.2d 1303. {¶ 58} Under this standard, a trial court must necessarily engage in a limited weighing of the evide......
-
Diso v. Dep't of Commerce
...(3) “Substantial” evidence is evidence with some weight; it must have importance and value.Our Place, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 63 Ohio St.3d 570, 571, 589 N.E.2d 1303 (1992) (footnotes omitted). {¶ 26} R.C. 119.12 requires a court of common pleas to conduct both “a hybrid factual ......