{
  "id": 8552601,
  "name": "AMERICAN LEGION, T/A MORRIS SLAUGHTER POST NO. 128, and ALONZO FUNCHES, MANAGER, Petitioner v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ALCOHOLIC CONTROL, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "American Legion v. North Carolina State Board of Alcoholic Control",
  "decision_date": "1975-10-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 7510SC417",
  "first_page": "266",
  "last_page": "268",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "27 N.C. App. 266"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "151 S.E. 2d 582",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 N.C. 624",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564406
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/268/0624-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "181 S.E. 2d 1",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "278 N.C. 623",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561214
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/278/0623-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "187 S.E. 2d 500",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 N.C. App. 19",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8546695
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/14/0019-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 S.E. 2d 864",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "246 N.C. 150",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8624977
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/246/0150-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 304,
    "char_count": 4995,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.606,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.41401564338306984
    },
    "sha256": "ec6ea805295ab430b48bf838ee5c1e8144ea2ff240c5029a8768ba5c3754f1ee",
    "simhash": "1:0a0d570a34252857",
    "word_count": 751
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:36.927205+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Brock and Judge Martin concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "AMERICAN LEGION, T/A MORRIS SLAUGHTER POST NO. 128, and ALONZO FUNCHES, MANAGER, Petitioner v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ALCOHOLIC CONTROL, Respondent"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nG.S. 18A-3(a) provides that it is unlawful to sell alcoholic beverages, except as authorized by statute. Petitioner does not suggest that it was authorized to sell alcoholic beverages or that its permits may not be suspended for a violation of that section. Petitioner does argue that there was no competent evidence that petitioner \u201cknowingly\u201d made the sales. Nevertheless, the officer\u2019s testimony that he bought the whiskey from petitioner\u2019s bartender was unequivocal and is sufficient to support the finding. The hearing officer was at liberty to disbelieve petitioner\u2019s opposing evidence. Petitioner acts through its agents and employees and is responsible for their conduct. Boyd v. Allen, 246 N.C. 150, 97 S.E. 2d 864. Petitioner\u2019s reliance on Watkins v. Board of Alcoholic Control, 14 N.C. App. 19, 187 S.E. 2d 500 is misplaced. In Watkins, the Board was not reversed because the permittee did not know of his employee\u2019s conduct in making an otherwise lawful sale of beer to an intoxicated person. The Board was reversed because of lack of evidence that the employee knew that the customer was intoxicated. For similar reasons the opinions of the Supreme Court in Underwood v. Board of Alcoholic Control, 278 N.C. 623, 181 S.E. 2d 1, and Food Stores v. Board of Alcoholic Control, 268 N.C. 624, 151 S.E. 2d 582, also cited by petitioner, are easily distinguished.\nPetitioner was also charged with violating Regulation No. 2 of respondent\u2019s regulations relating to possession of alcoholic beverages on premises holding a \u201cSocial Establishment\u201d permit. Among other things, this regulation requires that any member storing alcoholic beverages in a social establishment shall at all times retain control of his locker and beverages. The hearing officer\u2019s finding that petitioner\u2019s bartender possessed a key that would unlock a number of lockers supports his conclusion that petitioner was in violation of Regulation No. 2.\nAfter review of the whole record, including testimony describing the sales of whiskey by defendant\u2019s bartender on separate occasions and violations of Regulation No. 2, we hold that respondent\u2019s conclusion that petitioner failed to give the premises proper supervision is also adequately supported.\nPetitioner\u2019s remaining assignments of error have been duly considered and are overruled. Judge Brewer\u2019s order affirming the decision of the Board of Alcoholic Control is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nChief Judge Brock and Judge Martin concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney James Wallace, Jr., for the State.",
      "Westmoreland & Sawyer, by Barbara C. Westmoreland, for petitioner appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "AMERICAN LEGION, T/A MORRIS SLAUGHTER POST NO. 128, and ALONZO FUNCHES, MANAGER, Petitioner v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ALCOHOLIC CONTROL, Respondent\nNo. 7510SC417\n(Filed 15 October 1975)\n1. Intoxicating Liquor \u00a7 2 \u2014 sale of whiskey in social establishment \u2014 sufficiency of evidence to suspend permit\nEvidence tending to show that petitioner\u2019s bartender sold an undercover enforcement agent two drinks of whiskey was sufficient to support a finding that petitioner knowingly sold alcoholic beverages, since petitioner was responsible for the conduct of its employees.\n2. Intoxicating Liquor \u00a7 2\u2014 social establishment \u2014 control over lockers by bartender \u2014 revocation of permit proper\nEvidence that petitioner\u2019s bartender possessed a key that would unlock a number of lockers assigned to different members of petitioner\u2019s establishment was sufficient to support a finding that petitioner violated a regulation relating to possession of alcoholic beverages on premises holding a \u201cSocial Establishment\u201d permit which required that any member storing alcoholic beverages in a social establishment should at all times retain control of his locker- and beverages.\nAppeal by petitioner from Brewer, Judge. Judgment entered 17 April 1975 in Superior Court, Wake County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 September 1975.\nOn 16 April 1974, after notice and hearing, the State Board of Alcoholic Control, respondent, suspended permits held by petitioner for a period of 120 days. Judicial review was sought and an order staying respondent\u2019s decision was entered. The judicial review proceedings were conducted before Judge Brewer who entered judgment affirming respondent\u2019s decision.\nThe hearing officer for respondent made findings and conclusions, in summary, as follows: On 28 July 1973 petitioner\u2019s bartender sold two drinks of whiskey to an undercover enforcement officer. On 17 August T973 petitioner\u2019s bartender was seen unlocking lockers assigned to different members of the petitioner\u2019s establishment. The same key would unlock a number of the lockers. The hearing officer concluded that the foregoing were violations of the appropriate statutes and regulations and recommended that petitioner\u2019s permits be suspended for 120 days. After hearing further evidence from petitioner, the Board adopted the findings of fact and recommendation of the hearing officer.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney James Wallace, Jr., for the State.\nWestmoreland & Sawyer, by Barbara C. Westmoreland, for petitioner appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0266-01",
  "first_page_order": 294,
  "last_page_order": 296
}