Jarvis v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Board

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Jarvis v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Board

467 S.W.2d 733, 250 Ark. 843, 1971 Ark. LEXIS 1342

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedJune 7, 1971

Docket5-5586

StatusPublished

This text of 467 S.W.2d 733 (Jarvis v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jarvis v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, 467 S.W.2d 733, 250 Ark. 843, 1971 Ark. LEXIS 1342 (Ark. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Lyle Brown, Justice.

Appellants own and operate a retail liquor store and a beer outlet at Newport, Jackson County. Appellee, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, issues retail licenses and polices the business establishments possessing those licenses. Appellee David Hodges is the prosecuting attorney and was granted leave to intervene in his official capacity. The director of ABC found appellants guilty of selling liquor and beer to minors and invoked a thirty day suspension of appellants’ licenses. That order was affirmed on appeal to the ABC. An appeal was lodged with the circuit court of Jackson County and the trial court ordered that a transcript of the evidence before the ABC be lodged with that court. Before the scheduled hearing date was reached appellants filed a motion asking for leave to “introduce new evidence before this court in said appeal.” That motion was denied and appellants immediately appealed to this court. The single issue advanced is that the court erred in not permitting the introduction of new evidence.

The order denying permission to introduce new evidence was interlocutory and therefore not appealable. We have no jurisdiction irrespective of whether this issue is raised by the parties. Johnson v. Johnson, 245 Ark. 656, 421 S. W. 2d 605 (1967); Allred v. National Old Line Ins. Co., 245 Ark. 893, 435 S. W. 2d 104 (1968); Gaines v. Patton, 8 Ark. 67 (1847).

Appeal dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Lyle Brown, Justice.

Appellants own and operate a retail liquor store and a beer outlet at Newport, Jackson County. Appellee, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, issues retail licenses and polices the business establishments possessing those licenses. Appellee David Hodges is the prosecuting attorney and was granted leave to intervene in his official capacity. The director of ABC found appellants guilty of selling liquor and beer to minors and invoked a thirty day suspension of appellants’ licenses. That order was affirmed on appeal to the ABC. An appeal was lodged with the circuit court of Jackson County and the trial court ordered that a transcript of the evidence before the ABC be lodged with that court. Before the scheduled hearing date was reached appellants filed a motion asking for leave to “introduce new evidence before this court in said appeal.” That motion was denied and appellants immediately appealed to this court. The single issue advanced is that the court erred in not permitting the introduction of new evidence.

The order denying permission to introduce new evidence was interlocutory and therefore not appealable. We have no jurisdiction irrespective of whether this issue is raised by the parties. Johnson v. Johnson, 245 Ark. 656, 421 S. W. 2d 605 (1967); Allred v. National Old Line Ins. Co., 245 Ark. 893, 435 S. W. 2d 104 (1968); Gaines v. Patton, 8 Ark. 67 (1847).

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

467 S.W.2d 733, 250 Ark. 843, 1971 Ark. LEXIS 1342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jarvis-v-alcoholic-beverage-control-board-ark-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack