# North Lincoln Park Neighborhood Ass'n v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Board

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · October 23, 1995 · 666 A.2d 63

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9762517

## Case

- **Full name:** NORTH LINCOLN PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION and Capitol Hill Restoration Society, Petitioners v. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD, Respondent
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** October 23, 1995
- **Citations:** 666 A.2d 63; 1995 D.C. App. LEXIS 209; 1995 WL 619847
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Mack
- **Judges:** Terry, Steadman, Mack
- **Cited by:** 4 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/9762517

## Opinion text

MACK, Senior Judge,
dissenting:
*68 The District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, after extensive hearings held on six occasions in June through September of 1992, has concluded that Mr. and Mrs. Oh have demonstrated that they are conducting an appropriate business in a section of the city where a retail Class A liquor store has been operating since 1938. We must uphold a decision of the Board so long as it is in accordance with law and supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record as a whole. Park v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, 555 A.2d 1029, 1031 (D.C. 1989); Gerber v. District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, 499 A.2d 1193, 1196 (D.C.1985); Muir v. District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, 450 A.2d 412, 413-14 (D.C.1982). If there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding, mere evidence contrary to that finding does not permit this court to substitute its judgment for that of the Board. Spevak v. District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, 407 A.2d 549, 554 (D.C.1979). Moreover, the Board’s conclusions of law must be derived rationally from findings that are in accord with the underlying statute. Id. at 553 .
In my opinion, there is no question, on this record, that the Board’s decision to grant the renewal of a license to this convenience store is based upon sufficient and relevant evidence in compliance with statutory standards. I do not agree with my colleagues that the Board’s decision to renew must be reversed because it “ignored” Trant’s violation of a 1990 voluntary agreement made with petitioners. The Board did consider the “licensee’s compliance with the terms of the written agreement”; it did .not prevent protestants from testifying about alleged violations that it considered to rise to the level of statutory standards for renewal; it reserved for the alleged contract violations the procedural vehicle of a show-cause hearing. It initiated a separate proceeding and imposed a five-day suspension of Trant’s license. I see no need for reversal of the renewal order and remand for yet another hearing. As in Spevak, supra, the Board’s solution protects the due process concerns of all participants in the case. Id., 407 A.2d at 552 . Petitioners did not object to the bifurcated consideration.
I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the Board’s order of renewal.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9762517. Public record. Not legal advice.