From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State ex Rel. v. Bryant

Supreme Court of Ohio
Dec 19, 1951
102 N.E.2d 711 (Ohio 1951)

Opinion

Nos. 32672, 32690 and 32817

Decided December 19, 1951.

Intoxicating liquors — Application for permit to sell — Department of Liquor Control — Duty to accept and process applications.

IN MANDAMUS.

These three actions in mandamus invoke the original jurisdiction of this court. The relators allege in their petitions that they filed with the Department of Liquor Control applications for permits for the sale of spirituous and alcoholic beverages; that the permits issued and outstanding are less than the total number authorized; and that the Department of Liquor Control refused to accept relators' applications because of the provision of regulation No. 70 of the Board of Liquor Control that "during the effective period of this regulation no applications for such permits shall be accepted for filing."

The prayers of the petitions are for writs of mandamus ordering respondents to accept and process relators' applications.

Mr. Charles G. Schnur, Mr. John B. Freiden and Mr. Charles T. Kaps, for relators.

Mr. C. William O'Neill, attorney general, Mr. Thomas R. Lloyd and Mr. Richard L. Canter, for respondents.


The pleadings in these cases do not present, and this court does not decide, issues as to the qualifications of the relator-applicants for liquor permits, the right of these applicants to have permits issued to them, the right of respondents to refuse to issue permits to them, or the number of permits authorized or required to be issued.

The only issue before the court is the authority of respondents to refuse to accept and process relators' applications, as required by Section 6064-16, General Code, a part of the Liquor Control Act, which provides that "applications for regular permits authorized by this act may be filed with the Department of Liquor Control at any time after this act becomes effective," but that "no permit shall be issued by the department" where certain conditions exist. (Italics supplied.)

That section gives to the relators, without qualification, the right to file with the liquor department applications for permits, regardless of the qualifications of the applicants, the number of issued and outstanding permits or the maximum number authorized to be issued.

Therefore, it is the mandatory duty of the respondents to accept and process such applications, and the writs are allowed.

Writs allowed.

WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, STEWART, TAFT, MATTHIAS and HART, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State ex Rel. v. Bryant

Supreme Court of Ohio
Dec 19, 1951
102 N.E.2d 711 (Ohio 1951)
Case details for

State ex Rel. v. Bryant

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE, EX REL. MANDALLA v. BRYANT, DIR. OF DEPT. OF LIQUOR CONTROL…

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Dec 19, 1951

Citations

102 N.E.2d 711 (Ohio 1951)
102 N.E.2d 711

Citing Cases

Bush v. Pfeifer

OLCC, in determining whether to grant a liquor-license application, considers, among other things, the number…

Board v. Tsantles

The lower courts held invalid the prohibition against accepting applications during the effective period of…