Opinion
Record No. 1524-94-2
Decided: March 21, 1995
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, Randall G. Johnson, Judge
J. Ridgely Porter, III for appellant.
John Patrick Griffin, Assistant Attorney General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General; Michael K. Jackson, Senior Assistant Attorney General and Chief, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judge Elder and Senior Judge Cole
Pursuant to Code Sec. 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.
Upon review of the record, we hold that the circuit court's July 13, 1994, order is not appealable because it is not a final order.
The appellant, Ivory's Restaurant (Ivory's), was charged by the Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (Board) with five license violations of a mixed beverage license and five wine and beer on premises violations. On April 6, 1994, the Board revoked both licenses. Ivory's appealed these decisions to the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond. On July 13, 1994, the circuit court entered an order remanding the case back to the Board for further consideration and proceedings. This order is now on appeal before us.
This Court has jurisdiction over appeals of "[a]ny final decision of a circuit court on appeal from a decision of an administrative agency." A final decision is one "which disposes of the whole subject, gives all the relief that is contemplated and leaves nothing to be done by the court." Southwest Virginia Hosps. v. Lipps, 193 Va. 191, 193, 68 S.E.2d 82, 83-84 (1951).
In his letter dated July 13, 1994, the trial judge stated:
At the same time, the court is not in a position to say what the hearing officer would have recommended, or what the Board would have found, if the videotape had not been admitted into evidence, or if Branch had been given the promised opportunity to present evidence to rebut it. Only by remanding the case can these questions be answered.
Pursuant to his letter, the trial judge's July 13, 1994 order stated:
Ordered that the final decisions and orders in agency license numbers Z45645 and O45645, both dated April 6, 1994, are vacated, and the case is remanded to the Board for such further consideration and proceedings as it deems appropriate, except that such further consideration and proceedings may not include consideration of the videotape mentioned in the hearing officer's Finding of Fact No. 18, unless the Board remands the case to the hearing officer to allow appellant to present rebuttal evidence to it.
This is not a final order because it remands the case to the Board for further consideration and proceedings which could possibly result in a reversal of the previous decision by the Board. Because no final order has been entered in the circuit court, we do not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal without prejudice.
Dismissed.