Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Brown v. Liquor Control Commission

176 Conn. 428 (Conn. 1979)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Brown v. Liquor Control Commission

6 Citing cases

  1. Livingston v. Dept. of Consumer Protection

    991 A.2d 570 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010)   Cited 7 times

    Importantly, our Supreme Court has held that "[u]nder the statute[s of the Liquor Control Act (act), General Statutes § 30-1 et seq.], the resolution of factual matters with respect to applications for liquor permits is vested in the liquor control commission and it has a liberal discretion in determining the suitability of a permittee." Brown v. Liquor Control Commission, 176 Conn. 428, 430, 407 A.2d 1020 (1979). "[Section] 30-47 gives to the commission the power to refuse a permit if the applicant appears to be `financially irresponsible'. . . ."

  2. Costco v. Department, Consumer Protection

    2004 Conn. Super. Ct. 9167 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2004)

    The determination of factual matters with respect to applications for liquor permits is vested in the Liquor Control Commission. Brown v. Liquor Control Commission, 176 Conn. 428, 407 A.2d 1020 (1979). We recognize that the traditional grocery store concept is evolving, however, we must abide by the law as written.

  3. Costco Wholesale v. Department, Consumer

    2004 Conn. Super. Ct. 9473 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2004)

    The determination of factual matters with respect to applications for liquor permits is vested in the Liquor Control Commission. Brown v. Liquor Control Commission, 176 Conn. 428, 430, 407 A.2d 1020 (1979); Notaro v. [ Dept.] of Consumer Protection, [Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford/New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. CV 98 0578422 (November 12, 1998, Hartmere, J.) (23 Court. L. Rptr. 243)]. This review includes consideration not only of the 9-item breakdown of sales, but also of other factors such as visual observations, perception, and marketing focus.

  4. Ashour v. Connecticut Liquor Control

    1999 Ct. Sup. 2606 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1999)

    The plaintiffs are the permittee and backer of a grocery beer permit issued for Adnan Market, 562 Park Avenue, Bridgeport, Connecticut. The defendant is the Department of Liquor Control ("DLC"), a division of the State of Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection. The DLC issued the permit and supervises the use of such permit. General Statutes § 30-6; Brown v. Liquor Control Commission, 176 Conn. 428, 430 (1979). Following a contested hearing, the DLC found that the plaintiffs had on six specific occasions between September 12, 1996 and September 18, 1997 sold beer during prohibited hours, in contravention of General Statutes § 30-91.

  5. Notaro v. Department of Consumer Prot.

    1998 Ct. Sup. 12969 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1998)

    These considerations include the volume of grocery sales, and the floor space devoted to a variety of grocery products, together with the percentage of grocery items in its nine-tier breakdown of sales. The determination of factual matters with respect to applications for liquor permits is vested in the Liquor Control Commission. Brown v. Liquor Control Page 12974 Commission, 176 Conn. 428, 430, 407 A.2d 1020 (1979). Based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing, the Commission finds the Respondent Super Kmart Center is a "grocery store" as defined in Connecticut General Statutes Section 30-20(c).

  6. Finkeldey v. Shifrin

    1998 Ct. Sup. 7307 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1998)

    General Statutes § 30-6. Brown v. Liquor Control Commission, 176 Conn. 428, 430 (1979). Following a hearing, the DLC found that the plaintiffs on December 9, 1995 sold or delivered alcoholic liquor to a minor in violation of General Statutes § 30-86.