X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:After the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission denied his application for renewal of a beer and wine retailer’s on-premises license and after-hours permit for the Tropicana Night Club in Rosenburg, Jose Luis Garza sought an administrative hearing in the constitutional county court. The application for renewal was denied. Garza challenges the constitutionality of Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code �61.42(a)(3), and he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. HOLDING:Affirmed. The court first addresses the sufficiency of the evidence. The county court made at least 14 findings, most related to serving intoxicated persons, serving minors, disorderly conduct and criminal conduct on the premises. The county judge denied Garza’s renewal application on a number of grounds, one of which was that the place or manner in which Garza conducted his business warrants a refusal of a renewal license based on the general welfare, health, peace, morals, safety, and sense of decency of the people. The court concludes that substantial evidence in the record supports the county judge’s decision. The court also finds the findings filed by the county court to be adequate. They set forth in detail the wrongful conduct that is the basis for and supports the county court’s decision. The findings are not couched in statutory terms, and they are supported by conclusions of law. The court finds that many courts, including this court, have already concluded that �61.42(a)(3), which governs the renewal process, and other provisions of the ABC code are not unconstitutionally vague. Garza also claims he was denied due process. In support, he points to the trial court’s limitation of five witnesses per side, which he says deprived him of the chance to rebut certain testimony. The five-witness rule served to limit irrelevant, immaterial or unduly repetitious evidence under Government Code �2001.082, the court finds, and most of what Garza says he was unable to present was cumulative. Even with the limitation, the proceeding still took 12 days, and Garza had the opportunity to extensively cross-examine the TABC’s witnesses. The trial court did not abuse its discretion. He also says he was denied due process when the county court quashed his subpoenas that would have shown the level of police activity at similar clubs. The county court did not abuse its discretion, again because the decision limited the introduction of irrelevant or unduly repetitious evidence. Though Garza also argues that he was denied notice under the Administrative Procedure Act, the court finds the short, plain statement of the matters asserted by the TABC was sufficient. OPINION:Leslie Brock Yates, J.; Yates, Hudson and Fowler, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.