Texas Liquor Control Board v. Attic Club, Inc.

457 S.W.2d 41, 13 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 444, 1970 Tex. LEXIS 305
Texas Supreme Court·Decided July 8, 1970·No. B-2031·Published·Cited by 93 cases

Opinion

*42 STEAKLEY, Justice.

The Texas Liquor Control Board, now the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, 1 on May 14, 1969, promulgated Rule and Regulation No. 56 to become effective on September 1, 1969. Its full text is set forth in the attached Appendix. Respondents, The Attic Club, Inc., and the Black Garter Club, private club registration permittees under the Texas Liquor Control Act, Art. 666-1 et seq., Vernon’s Texas Penal Code, filed this suit for themselves and as a class action to restrain enforcement of the rule. See Kee v. Baber, 157 Tex. 387, 303 S.W.2d 376 (1957); Cobb v. Harrington, 144 Tex. 360, 190 S.W.2d 709 (1945); and cf. Texas State Board of Examiners in Optometry v. Carp, 162 Tex. 1, 343 S.W.2d 242 (1961). Upon temporary injunction hearing, the trial court found probable injury but not probable right and denied temporary injunc-tive relief; 2 see Texas Liquor Control Board v. Diners’ Club, Inc., 347 S.W.2d 763 (Tex.Civ.App.1961, error ref’d n. r. e.). The Court of Civil Appeals reversed and rendered judgment for Respondents. 450 S.W.2d 149. We reverse.

Art. 666-2 of the Texas Liquor Control Act, recites that “This entire Act shall be deemed an exercise of the police power of the State for the protection of the welfare, health, peace, temperance, and safety of the people of State” and directs that “all its provisions shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of that purpose.”

Art. 666-6 vests the Commission with “power and authority to prescribe all necessary rules and regulations to that end;” namely: “to supervise, inspect, and regulate every phase of the business of manufacturing, importation, exportation, transportation, storage, sale, distribution, possession for the purpose of sale, and possession of all alcoholic beverages, including the advertising and labeling thereof, in all respects necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Act.”

Art. 666-7a provides the procedure for the adoption of rules or regulations for which a penalty is prescribed:

“No rule or regulation for which a penalty is prescribed either by this Act or by the Board, shall be adopted by the Board except after notice and hearing. Notice of such hearing shall be given by publication in three (3) newspapers of general circulation in different sections of the State. Such notice shall specify the date and place of hearing and the subject matter of the proposed rule or regulation and shall constitute sufficient notice to all parties. The date of hearing shall be not less than ten (10) days from the date of publication' of notice. At such hearing any person, either by himself or by attorney, may present relevant facts either in support or opposition thereto. The Board shall upon a finding of facts, have the authority and power to adopt, modify, nullify, or alter such rules or regulations.
Upon the final adoption of any rule or regulation, the Board shall cause the same to be published one time in a newspaper of general circulation in this State and the same shall have the force and effect of law as of the date of publication, unless a different date is specified therein. The publication thereof shall be sufficient notice to all parties. Any person who violates any valid rule or regulation or any provision thereof shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be subject to the penalty as prescribed in Section 41, Article I of this Act.”

Respondents acknowledge that the Board conformed to the statutory requirements of notice, hearing and publication in the *43 promulgation of Rule 56. They say, however, that the absence of findings of fact is fatal to its validity. The contention is that Art. 666-7a conditions the authority and power of the Board to adopt rules and regulations upon findings of fact reduced to writing in the promulgating order, or in other records of the Board. Additionally, Respondents contend that Sections 3 and 4 of the Rule are unenforce-ably vague, indefinite and ambiguous.

The statutory procedure for the adoption of rules and regulations for which a penalty is prescribed is plainly stated. There must be notice and hearing and at the hearing any person may present relevant facts either in support of or in opposition to the proposal. The Board is clothed with the authority and power to adopt the proposal if the facts are found to support such action. It is not here contended as a basis for the claimed procedural invalidity that the Board did not act upon the basis of facts found, or that the facts do not support its action. The argument of invalidity, and the ruling of the Court of Civil Appeals, are grounded on the proposition that specific fact findings were not contained in the promulgating order, or in other records of the Board, the presupposition being that such is a requirement of the statute.

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

Texas Liquor Control Board v. Attic Club, Inc., 457 S.W.2d 41, 13 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 444, 1970 Tex. LEXIS 305 (Tex. 1970).

457 S.W.2d 41 (Texas Liquor Control Board v. Attic Club, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 2014
Noell v. City of Carrollton
431 S.W.3d 682 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2014)
ElderCare Properties, Inc. v. Texas Department of Human Services
63 S.W.3d 551 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Brown v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline
980 S.W.2d 675 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)
Kerr v. Texas Department of Public Safety
973 S.W.2d 732 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)
Retama Development Corp. v. Texas Workforce Commission
971 S.W.2d 136 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)
Benton v. Commission of Lawyer Discipline
933 S.W.2d 784 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1996)
General Tire, Inc. v. Kepple Ex Rel. Kepple
917 S.W.2d 444 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1996)
National Ass'n of Independent Insurers v. Texas Department of Insurance
888 S.W.2d 198 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1994)
Crum & Forster, Inc. v. Monsanto Co.
887 S.W.2d 103 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1994)
J.B. Advertising, Inc. v. Sign Board of Appeals
883 S.W.2d 443 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1994)