Mullins v. Board of Liquor Control

Ohio Court of Appeals

Mullins v. Board of Liquor Control

139 N.E.2d 870, 73 Ohio Law. Abs. 577

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 24, 1954

DocketNo. 5081

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 139 N.E.2d 870 (Mullins v. Board of Liquor Control) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mullins v. Board of Liquor Control, 139 N.E.2d 870, 73 Ohio Law. Abs. 577 (Ohio Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

By THE COURT.

This is a law appeal from the judgment of the Common Pleas Court reversing an order of the Board of Liquor Control affirming that of the Department denying the applicant, Luther J. Mullins, a D-2 liquor permit. The question presented is whether, upon objection of the authorities in control of a library within 500 feet of the permit premises, to wit, 50 feet from the nearest point, and a showing that a large number of children use the library and would be required to pass the premises, the order is supported by “substantial, reliable and probative evidence.” (Sec. 154-73 GC.) This question has been answered by this Court in the affirmative upon very similar facts on three different occasions, in the unreported cases of Kroger Co. v. Board of Liquor Control, No. 4921, Godic v. Board of Liquor Control, No. 4897, and Hermelin v. Board of Liquor Control, No. 4893. (OA 73 Abs 397.) These cases were decided on June 3, 1953, and after the effective date of §154-73 GC. Hence, there has been no change in the degree of proof required by statute. We adhere to the legal principles pronounced in the cited cases and reasons therefor, and hold that the order is supported by evidence that is substantial, reliable and probative.

The judgment will be reversed and the order of the Board affirmed.

WISEMAN, PJ, MILLER and HORNBECK, JJ, concur.

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

OPINION

By THE COURT.

This is a law appeal from the judgment of the Common Pleas Court reversing an order of the Board of Liquor Control affirming that of the Department denying the applicant, Luther J. Mullins, a D-2 liquor permit. The question presented is whether, upon objection of the authorities in control of a library within 500 feet of the permit premises, to wit, 50 feet from the nearest point, and a showing that a large number of children use the library and would be required to pass the premises, the order is supported by “substantial, reliable and probative evidence.” (Sec. 154-73 GC.) This question has been answered by this Court in the affirmative upon very similar facts on three different occasions, in the unreported cases of Kroger Co. v. Board of Liquor Control, No. 4921, Godic v. Board of Liquor Control, No. 4897, and Hermelin v. Board of Liquor Control, No. 4893. (OA 73 Abs 397.) These cases were decided on June 3, 1953, and after the effective date of §154-73 GC. Hence, there has been no change in the degree of proof required by statute. We adhere to the legal principles pronounced in the cited cases and reasons therefor, and hold that the order is supported by evidence that is substantial, reliable and probative.

The judgment will be reversed and the order of the Board affirmed.

WISEMAN, PJ, MILLER and HORNBECK, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 N.E.2d 870, 73 Ohio Law. Abs. 577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mullins-v-board-of-liquor-control-ohioctapp-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack