# Holifield v. Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control Board

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · July 6, 1981 · 273 Ark. 305

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7821852

## Case

- **Full name:** Stuart HOLIFIELD v. ARKANSAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD and Mac CARDER, Administrator
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** July 6, 1981
- **Citations:** 273 Ark. 305; 619 S.W.2d 621; 1981 Ark. LEXIS 1359
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Purtle
- **Judges:** Hays, Purtle
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7821852

## Opinion text

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. I cannot agree with the majority in holding that an appeal to the ABC Board from a 30-day suspension may give rise to a permanent revocation of a license. Appellant was never informed that his license was in jeopardy for more than the 30-day suspension. After the hearing was over and the parties were gone the Board decided in a secret session that they would go whole hog and deprive the appellant of his license entirely. Not only was there lack of timely notice there was complete lack of notice in all respects regarding the permanent revocation of appellant’s license. I have never seen due process so completely ignored. For good measure the Board violated the Freedom of Information Act and has never redone the matter in open session. As punishment for this violation of the law and failure to give proper notice, also in violation of the law, the majority rewards the Board by upholding this unreasonable and arbitrary action.
Ark. Stat. Ann. § 48-1312 (Repl. 1977) states in part:
... No such license shall be revoked except after a hearing by the Director with reasonable notice to the licensee and an opportunity to appear and defend. ...
The only places which make it more obvious that the appellant was entitled to notice are the Constitutions of the State and Nation. Article 2 § 21 of the Constitution of the State of Arkansas states:
No person shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseized of his estate, freehold, liberties or privileges; or outlawed, or in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life, liberty or property, except by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land; nor shall any person, under any circumstances, be exiled from the State.
If that’s not plain enough, then let’s take a peek at the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, section 1, which reads in part:
... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Another bit of interesting reading is found in Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975), which states:
... there can be no doubt that at a minimum they require that deprivation of life, liberty or property by adjudication be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.
If one wants to get right down to the law in Arkansas, he might look at the case of Franklin v. State, 267 Ark. 311 , 590 S.W. 2d 28 (1979), wherein we stated:
Fundamental requirements of due process require the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and a meaningful place before a person may be deprived of life, liberty or property.
I would reverse that portions of the lower court judgment which upholds the permanent revocation of appellant’s license.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7821852. Public record. Not legal advice.