The opinion
Cite as 2021 Ark. App. 439
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
Elizabeth Perry
I attest to the accuracy and DIVISION III
integrity of this document No. CV-20-585
2023.07.14 11:39:24 -05'00'
2023.003.20244
Opinion Delivered November 10, 2021
DEMETRIOS KOLLIAS D/B/A APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
PAPER MOON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SIXTH
APPELLANT DIVISION
[NO. 60CV-19-9091]
V.
HONORABLE TIMOTHY DAVIS FOX,
ARKANSAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE JUDGE
CONTROL BOARD
APPELLEE AFFIRMED
LARRY D. VAUGHT, Judge
Demetrios Kollias, doing business as Paper Moon (hereinafter “Paper Moon”), appeals
the Pulaski County Circuit Court’s order affirming the Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control
(“ABC”) Board’s revocation of Paper Moon’s liquor permits. Because Paper Moon does not
challenge all the findings supporting the revocation, we affirm.
Paper Moon is an adult-entertainment establishment located in Little Rock, Arkansas.
Paper Moon held an ABC “Private Club Class B” permit and a “Retail Beer on Premises”
permit. The ABC Enforcement Division conducted an undercover investigation regarding
Paper Moon that ultimately resulted in three days of hearings before the ABC Board. The
ABC Board found that Paper Moon had violated thirty-four ABC regulations, and it revoked
Paper Moon’s permits.
Paper Moon appealed to the circuit court for review. ABC filed the transcript of the
first two days of the hearing on June 12, 2021, but ABC was unable to produce a transcript
from the final day of the hearing due to technical difficulties. On July 6, 2020, the circuit court
issued an order affirming ABC’s decision to revoke Paper Moon’s permits. Paper Moon then
filed this timely appeal.
In Moore v. King, 328 Ark. 639, 945 S.W.2d 358 (1997), the Arkansas Supreme Court set
forth the rules governing judicial review of decisions of administrative agencies:
On appeal, our review is directed, not toward the circuit court, but rather toward
the decision of the agency. In review of an agency decision, the circuit court’s review
is limited to a determination of whether there was substantial evidence to support the
agency’s decision and, on appeal, the Supreme Court’s review is similarly limited.
Administrative agencies, as opposed to courts, are better equipped by specialization,
insight through experience, and more flexible procedures to determine and analyze
legal issues affecting their agencies. Questions concerning the credibility of witnesses
and the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented lies within the prerogative of
the agency, rather than the reviewing court.
Substantial evidence is defined as valid, legal, and persuasive evidence or such
relevant evidences as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion. To establish an absence of substantial evidence it must be demonstrated
that the proof before the administrative tribunal was so nearly undisputed that fair-
minded persons could not reach its conclusions.
Administrative decisions should be upheld if they are supported by substantial
evidence and are not arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion.
The courts determine whether there has been an arbitrary or unwarranted abuse of
discretion, even though considerable judicial restraint should be observed in finding
such an abuse. An administrative decision should be reversed as arbitrary and
capricious only when it is not supportable on any rational basis, not simply because the
reviewing court would have acted differently. The party challenging the agency’s
decision must prove that such action was willful and unreasonable, without
consideration and with a disregard of the facts or circumstances of the case.
328 Ark. at 643–44, 945 S.W.2d at 360–61 (internal citations omitted). The burden of proof is
on the party challenging the agency decision. Ark. State Bd. of Licensure for Prof’l Eng’rs & Prof’l
Surveyors v. Callicott, 2016 Ark. App. 476, at 4, 503 S.W.3d 860, 863.
On appeal, Paper Moon argues that nine of the thirty-four findings were unsupported
by sufficient evidence. Specifically, Paper Moon states that five findings should be reversed as
2
lacking any evidentiary support because there was no recording or transcript of the testimony
on which they were based. Additionally, Paper Moon alleges that the four allegations of
solicitation, even if proven, do not state a violation of applicable administrative rules.
However, we need not address the merits of these arguments because Paper Moon has not
challenged the remaining twenty-three findings supporting the revocation of its permits.
Instead, it simply states in the conclusion section of its brief that it “still disputes” those
findings. Paper Moon has provided no substantive analysis for why those findings should be
reversed.
We have consistently held that “[w]hen an appellant fails to attack an independent,
alternative basis for a ruling, we will not reverse.” Sheppard v. Ark. Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd.,
2014 Ark. App. 604, at 6, 447 S.W.3d 614, 618. Here, Paper Moon has not challenged the
majority of the ABC Board’s findings supporting revocation of its permits. Even if we agreed
with Paper Moon’s arguments on appeal, the remaining unchallenged findings would provide
ample basis to affirm the revocation.
Affirmed.
BARRETT and MURPHY, JJ., agree.
John W. Walker, P.A., by: Shawn G. Childs, for appellant.
Michael C. Lewis, for appellee.
3