Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board
California Supreme Court
145 P.3d 462 (2006)

- Written by Darius Dehghan, JD
Facts
The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (the department) (plaintiff) had exclusive licensing authority over entities selling alcoholic beverages. The process for adjudicating whether licensees violated the terms of their licenses occurred in two stages. In the first stage, a department prosecutor and the licensee presented their respective cases to an administrative law judge (ALJ) at an evidentiary hearing. In the second stage, the department director decided whether to adopt the ALJ’s proposed decision. The department’s prosecutors sought to suspend the license of Daniel Quintanar (defendant) for serving obviously intoxicated persons. The ALJ found in favor of Quintanar. Consistent with department procedure, the prosecutor prepared a report of hearing, consisting of a summary of the evidentiary hearing and the recommended resolution, which he then provided ex parte to the director. The director rejected the ALJ’s proposed decision and suspended Quintanar’s license. A separate body, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board (the board), reversed the director’s decision. The court of appeal affirmed the board’s decision. The department appealed to the California Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Werdegar, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.