Santos v. Smith
| Decision Date | 23 March 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 1638,1638 |
| Citation | 208 A.2d 524,99 R.I. 430 |
| Parties | Victor SANTOS v. Nathaniel W. SMITH, Jr., Liquor Control Administrator. M. P. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Pontarelli & Berberian, Aram K. Berberian, Providence, for petitioner.
J. Joseph Nugent, Atty. Gen., Corinne P. Grande, Sp. Counsel, for respondent.
This petition for certiorari was brought to review a decision of the state liquor control administrator revoking the petitioner's class B license for the sale of alcoholic beverages in an establishment located in the city of East Providence. Pursuant to the writ, the respondent has certified to this court the records of the proceedings in this cause.
When the cause came on to be argued before us, we raised sua sponte the question of the applicability of the Administrative Procedures Act, GL.1956, chap. 35 of title 42. The parties filed supplemental briefs addressed to that question. They now agree that proceedings relative to the suspension or revocation of liquor licenses are within the purview of the act and that after all administrative remedies have been exhausted, application for judicial review is by petition to the superior court rather than by certiorari to this court. It is at this point that their agreement ends.
The respondent urges that the writ be quashed as improvidently issued; petitioner argues that we should in the exercise of our supervisory power retain jurisdiction. The act, although approved in 1962 effective as of January 1, 1964, has not previously been brought to our attention, notwithstanding that in retrospect its pertinency may in several instances have been relevant to our considerations. The failure of experienced counsel in those causes, and the attorney general in this, to rely upon its provisions leads to the conclusion that the bar generally has not been aware of its adoption. In such circumstances we are not inclined to dismiss this writ as improvidently issued and thereby deprive petitioner of the judicial review to which he would have been entitled if, mindful of the act, he had within the time prescribed therein addressed a proper petition to the superior court. Our willingness to proceed in this instance should not, however, be deemed to be a precedent either for a similar disposition in the future or a holding that the act applies.
No more than a brief recital of the facts as disclosed in the record is required. It appears that the local police, having reason to believe that petitioner's establishment was patronized by minors, raided it on the night of January 17, 1964. They found it crowded and apprehended twenty-two patrons whose appearance suggested they were minors. Subsequent investigation confirmed their suspicions as to fourteen, four of whom admitted to the police that they had purchased intoxicating liquors. Two so testified at the hearing.
In addition, the record book that petitioner was required to keep pursuant to G.L. 1956, § 3-8-6, as amended, as admitted as an exhibit and it contained only a few recent signatures. Among the provisions of that section is one which allows a licensee charged with selling to a minor to establish at least prima facie evidence of his good faith in making that sale by presentation of the record book containing the signature of that customer and a reference as to whether a birth certificate or other document was presented for the purpose of confirming his age.
The petitioner admits that he sold alcoholic beverages to minors in violation of § 3-8-6, and he concedes that it was within the authority conferred by the legislature for respondent to revoke his license for those offenses. Ordinarily, that acquiescence would be dispositive of this petition. Cesaroni v. O'Dowd, 94 R.I. 66, 177 A.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United Transit Co. v. Nunes
...however, it is appropriate that the administrator file his supplementary decision and order with all reasonable dispatch. In Santos v. Smith, R.I., 208 A.2d 524 (filed March 23, 1965), we called attention to the statutory procedure provided in G.L.1956, chap. 35 of title 42, the Administrat......
-
State v. Fortes
...thereon in those rare instances which may arise in the future when sentence revision is deemed appropriate. See Santos v. Smith, 99 R.I. 430, 431-432, 208 A.2d 524, 525 (1965). Insofar as the judgment determines guilt of the offense of possession of a narcotic drug, it is affirmed. Insofar ......
-
Hardman v. Personnel Appeal Bd.
...in the exercise of our supervisory power retain jurisdiction and consider the petition on its merits, as we did recently in Santos v. Smith, R.I., 208 A.2d 524. See also United Transit Co. v. Nunes, R.I., 209 A.2d 215, 224, and Pellegrino v. State Board of Elections, R.I., 211 A.2d 655 (fil......
-
Moura v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc.
...power of this Court authorizes us to dismiss an appeal if a party fails to follow a duly issued order. See Santos v. Smith, 99 R.I. 430, 431–32, 208 A.2d 524, 525 (1965) (declining to dismiss certiorari petition for not complying with a statutory provision, but retaining authority to decide......