TORCH CLUB, INC., A CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
RICHARD B. KEATING, DIRECTOR, STATE BEVERAGE DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Torch Club, Inc. sought a writ of certiorari to challenge the State Beverage Department's revocation of its liquor license based on findings that employees solicited customers to purchase alcoholic beverages for them and offered to engage in prostitution. The appellate court upheld the revocation, finding substantial competent evidence supported the Director's factual findings.
The court held that substantial competent evidence supported the Director's findings of fact, and therefore the license revocation was proper. The court affirmed that the Director's factual determinations, made after a full hearing with notice, would only be overturned upon a showing they were not supported by substantial competent evidence, and no such showing was made here.
“the findings of an administrative agency ordinarily will only be overturned on review upon a showing that they are not supported by substantial competent evidence”
Establishes the standard of review for administrative agency decisions in quasi-judicial proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State Beverage Department conducted undercover operations at Torch Club between April 1963 and January 1964. Department agents documented multiple…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Administrative Agency Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
This petition for writ of certiorari has been filed by Torch Club, Inc., a corporation, pursuant to Section 561.29(7) (b), Fla. Stat., F.S.A., to review an order of the State Beverage Department of Florida revoking petitioner’s beverage license, or any renewal thereof.
The license was revoked on the grounds that employees of the licensee begged or solicited customers to purchase for them alcoholic beverages in violation of Section 562.131, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., and that an employee offered to commit or engage in prostitution, lewdness or assignation with one of the agents of the Beverage Department in violation of Sections 796.07 and 561.29, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
The Director’s order contains the following findings of fact concerning activities at petitioner’s licensed place of business: That on or about April 2, 1963, at approximately 1:00 A.M., a white female employed as a dancer, begged or solicited an agent of the Beverage Department, a customer or patron (naming customer) to purchase an alcoholic beverage for her; that on December 21, 1963, at approximately 1:25 A.M., two white females solicited two of the Department’s agents as patrons or customers to purchase two alcoholic drinks each for them; that on December 21, 1963, from about 1:40 A.M. to about 3:00 A.M., a white female begged or solicited one of the agents, a patron or customer, to purchase for her a bottle of champagne and three glasses of champagne, and she also offered to commit or engage in prostitution, lewdness or assignation with said agent; that on or about January 3, 1964, from approximately 2:00 A.M. to 2:30 A.M., two white females begged or solicited two of the agents to purchase two alcoholic drinks for them; that on or about January 3, 1964, from approximately 2:30 A.M. to 3 :00 A.M., a white female begged or solicited an agent to purchase for her two alcoholic drinks; that on or about January 28, 1964, from about 2:25 A.M. to about 3:45 A.M., two white females begged or solicited two agents to purchase for them approximately four alcoholic drinks each.
*747Seven of the Beverage Department’s agents testified during the hearing. The Torch Club, represented by its president Alfred Gordan, sought to rebut their testimony with that of two of the female employees of the Club,
In the case of Pauline v. Lee, Fla.App. 1962, 147 So.2d 359, another Beverage Department license revocation case, we said:
“In the exercise of a quasi-judicial function where a decision is reached after a full hearing conducted pursuant to notice, such as was the case here, the findings of an administrative agency ordinarily will only be overturned on review upon a showing that they are not supported by substantial competent evidence. United States Casualty Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., Fla.1951, 55 So.2d 741; Nelson v. State, (1945), 156 Fla. 189, 23 So.2d 136, cert. denied 327 U.S. 790, 66 S.Ct. 809, 90 L.Ed. 1016; Schott v. Brooks, Fla.1952, 56 So.2d 456; Florida Industrial Commission v. Nordin [Fla.App., 101 So.2d 890], supra, DeGroot v. Sheffield, Fla. 1957, 95 So.2d 912, defining substantial evidence as such evidence as a reasonable man would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It is not incumbent upon the reviewing court to resolve conflicts in the testimony adduced before an administrative tribunal. Evidence is weighed by the administrative agency and not by the courts. Florida Rate Conference v. Florida Railroad & Public Utilities Commission, Fla.1959, 108 So.2d 601. Nor, if it were so inclined (which, on the record here presented, this court is not), should the court substitute its judgment for that of the administrative fact finder who heard the testimony and was in a position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses. Pritchett v. Florida Real Estate Commission, Fla.App. 1962, 143 So.2d 45.”
The case sub judice follows rather closely Pauline v. Lee, supra.
We conclude that there was substantial competent evidence to support the findings of the Director and deny certiorari.
Certiorari denied.
SHANNON and ANDREWS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taylor v. State Bev. Dep't of Fla. & Dir. of State Bev. Dep't of Fla., 194 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…se' of narcotic drugs, “rolling” of customers, or violations of similar type on the premises. There was none of the flagrantly culpable conduct and chronic violations present in Pauline v. Lee, supra, or in Torch Club, Inc. v. Keating, Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 746, or in DeJoris v. State Beverage Dept., Fla.App.1962, 145 So. 2d 562, or in Life Bar & Package Store, Inc. v. State Beverage Dept., Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 463. The outright revocation of a beverage license is a most serious and drastic penalty, e…
-
Torch Club, Inc. v. Keating, 188 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 1966)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 174 So. 2d 746.…
-
Redwing Enters., Inc. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, 386 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…ce and the essential requirements of the applicable law. Smith Terminal Warehouse Co. v. Be [*1256] vis, 312 So. 2d 721 (Fla.1975); Peden v. State Board of Funeral Directors & Embalmers, 189 So. 2d 526 (Fla.3d DCA 1966); Torch Club, Inc. v. Keating, 174 So. 2d 746 (Fla.2d DCA 1965), cert. denied, 188 So. 2d 313 (Fla.1966). The order below is therefore Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- de Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1957)
- US Cas. Co. v. Md. Cas. Co., 55 So.2d 741 (Fla. 1951)
- Pauline v. LEE, 147 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Florida Rate Conference v. Fla. R.R. & Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 108 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1959)
- Nelson v. State, 156 Fla. 189 (Fla. 1945)
- Fla. Indus. Comm'n v. Nordin, 101 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Schott v. Brooks, 56 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 1952)
- Pritchett v. The Fla. Real Est. Comm'n, 143 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Florida ex rel. Quigg v. Nelson, 327 U.S. 790 (U.S. 1946)
- Lantz v. Ragen, 327 U.S. 790 (U.S. 1946)