Tarpoff v. Board of Liquor Control

Ohio Court of Appeals

Tarpoff v. Board of Liquor Control

169 N.E.2d 19, 110 Ohio App. 290, 90 Ohio Law. Abs. 424, 13 Ohio Op. 2d 45, 1960 Ohio App. LEXIS 760

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 26, 1960

Docket6190

StatusPublished

This text of 169 N.E.2d 19 (Tarpoff 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

Tarpoff v. Board of Liquor Control, 169 N.E.2d 19, 110 Ohio App. 290, 90 Ohio Law. Abs. 424, 13 Ohio Op. 2d 45, 1960 Ohio App. LEXIS 760 (Ohio Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

*425 Per Curiam.

A plea of guilty having been entered at the time of appearance before the Board of Liquor Control, was the Court of Common Pleas correct in sustaining the Board, since the severity of the penalty is the question raised by the appeal. In view of the decision in the case of Henry’s Cafe, Inc., v. Board of Liquor Control, 170 Ohio St., 233, the Board has the sole power of determining the penalty in these cases unless there is a finding that there was no substantial, reliable or probative evidence to support their finding. The guilty plea did preclude any such finding in this case.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Bryant, P. J., and Duffy, J., concur. Miller, J., not participating.

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

*425 Per Curiam.

A plea of guilty having been entered at the time of appearance before the Board of Liquor Control, was the Court of Common Pleas correct in sustaining the Board, since the severity of the penalty is the question raised by the appeal. In view of the decision in the case of Henry’s Cafe, Inc., v. Board of Liquor Control, 170 Ohio St., 233, the Board has the sole power of determining the penalty in these cases unless there is a finding that there was no substantial, reliable or probative evidence to support their finding. The guilty plea did preclude any such finding in this case.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Bryant, P. J., and Duffy, J., concur. Miller, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 N.E.2d 19, 110 Ohio App. 290, 90 Ohio Law. Abs. 424, 13 Ohio Op. 2d 45, 1960 Ohio App. LEXIS 760, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tarpoff-v-board-of-liquor-control-ohioctapp-1960.