Caras v. Del Liquor Comm

7 Citing cases

  1. Applications of X-Chequer Inn, Inc.

    229 A.2d 22 (Del. Super. Ct. 1967)   Cited 6 times

    Lord v. Delaware Liquor Commission, 2 Terry 154, 17 A.2d 230, 235 (Gen.Sess. 1940); Caras v. Delaware Liquor Commission, 8 Terry 268, 90 A.2d 492, 494 (Super.Ct. 1952). Its decision, if based upon proper evidence as set forth in the record and made in the exercise of sound discretion, will not be disturbed.

  2. Pusey v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Com'n

    596 A.2d 1367 (Del. 1991)   Cited 2 times
    Finding parties at administrative hearing entitled to due process, including right of cross-examination

    Although we reverse the Superior Court's ruling, we note that the disputed financial data became available upon the filing of the administrative record in the Superior Court and counsel for the protestants has seen it. Under 4 Del. C. § 541(c), the Superior Court has the option of receiving additional evidence to supplement the record, as an alternative to remanding the matter to the Commission for further action.See Caras v. Delaware Liquor Comm'n, Del.Super., 90 A.2d 492, 494 (1952). We leave to the Superior Court the selection of which remedy should be pursued to afford relief to the appellants by reason of the denial of access to the financial information.

  3. Demarie v. Del. Alc. Bev. Control Comm

    143 A.2d 119 (Del. 1958)   Cited 9 times

    This map and attached sheet constitute a part of the record in this case. The granting or refusal of an application for a license is a matter resting within the sound discretion of the Commission. Caras v. Delaware Liquor Commission, 8 Terry 268, 90 A.2d 492. Its decision, if based upon proper evidence as set forth in the record and made in the exercise of sound discretion, will not be disturbed. Diamond State Liquors v. Delaware Liquor Commission, 6 Terry 412, 75 A.2d 248. With the record in this case showing the large number of licensed places within a distance of five miles and a substantial number within the distance of one mile or less from the proposed location of appellant, we cannot say that in refusing an application for a license the Commission acted arbitrarily or that its finding of fact with respect to the sufficiency of licensed places in the community is not reasonably supported by the evidence. (3) What was the effect of the letter from the Secretary of the Commission advising appellant's attorney that a hearing would be held and that appellant's attorney would be given due and timely notice thereof? Appellant weaves an ingenious argument out of the first sentence of subsection (a) of Section 541, regarding the decision

  4. 250 Exec. v. Christina Sch. Dist.

    N22C-03-190 FWW (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 30, 2023)

    (citation omitted)." Caras v. Delaware Liquor Com'n, 90 A.2d 492, 494 (Del. Super. Ct 1952). Tesla, Inc. v. Delaware Division of Motor Vehicles, 2022 WL 4482222, at *6 (Del. Super. Ct. Sept, 23, 2022) (quoting K-Mart, Inc. v. Bowles, 1995 WL 269872, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 23, 1995)).

  5. Derose v. Delaware Beverage Con. Com'n

    349 A.2d 753 (Del. Super. Ct. 1975)

    From these, appellants argue that a license must be granted unless one of the specified bars to a license is present, the license must be granted. It is well established that the action of the Commission must be in the exercise of sound discretion and upon judicial review it must meet that test. Diamond State Liquors v. Delaware Liquor Commission, 6 Terry 412, 45 Del. 412, 75 A.2d 248 (1950); Caras v. Delaware Liquor Commission, 8 Terry 268, 47 Del. 268, 90 A.2d 492 (1952). It is recognized that the control of the sale of alcoholic beverages is a singular area of the law, having been dealt with separately by constitutional provision.

  6. Mitchell v. Del. A.B.C. Comm

    56 Del. 260 (Del. Super. Ct. 1963)   Cited 11 times

    Consequently, this Court is of the opinion it was the Commission's duty, in light of what had been learned in the Moore case and the Burton case, to instruct its investigators to ascertain how its White licensees were utilizing their licenses in the Delaware City area, particularly how they were using their licenses in the sale — on premises as well as off premises — of intoxicants to Colored citizens of the community. It won't do for the Commission to say it did not learn the race of applicant or it was ignorant of such practices; the Court is convinced the Commission was under a duty to learn all the facts because, as was said by this Court in Caras v. Commission, 8 Terry 268, 90 A.2d 492, 494 (Super.Ct. 1952): See page 300 et seq., supra, which reflect what the Commission learned of conditions in the Delaware City area from subsequent inquiry, made at the direction of the Court following the first Court hearing.

  7. State v. 123 128 Logan St.

    55 Del. 487 (Del. Super. Ct. 1963)   Cited 5 times

    " This was the language used by Judge Rodney in Reeves v. Penna. R.R. Co., 9 F.R.D. 487, 489 (D.C.); see also the definition used by former President Judge Richards in Caras v. Delaware Liquor Commission, 8 Terry 268, 90 A.2d 492, 494 (Super.Ct., 1952); and what was said of discretion by the Court in Peterson v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 116 F.2d 148, 151 (C.C.A. 8, 1940); and in Baldwin v. Ewing, 69 Idaho . . ., 204 P.2d 430, 432 (1949). Defendants produced Daniel Koffler, a well known and recognized consulting engineer, and proposed through him to show the cost of reproduction and/or replacement of the structure on the premises, less depreciation, as an element of value which the defendants contended should be considered by the commission.