Parks further asserts that because he has a liquor license from the state, the injunction conflicts with state law. See People v. Gray, 101 Ill.App.2d 217, 242 N.E.2d 298, 300 (1968) (holding an excursion boat owner with a valid state-issued liquor license is not required to also have a county-issued liquor license). Additionally, Parks asserts the extension of the injunction to include other excursion boats was improper because the operations of these boats were not specifically at issue in the underlying litigation.

The reviewing court held that although the defendant in the subsequent suit was not a party to the prior suit (which had been brought by the plaintiff wherein plaintiff raised the same questions as raised in the subsequent suit), the defendant in the subsequent suit could properly raise a defense of estoppel in the subsequent suit because of the special relationship existing between the plaintiff and the defendant in the subsequent action, on the one hand, and also between those two parties and the defendant in the prior action, on the other hand. No such conditions exist here. People v. Gray, 101 Ill. App.2d 217, 242 N.E.2d 298, involved an attempt by a local commissioner to obtain a conviction for defendant's failure to obtain a local license to conduct a liquor business on a pleasure boat. The court on review held that under the evidence presented, such type of liquor licensing was a matter solely within the jurisdiction of the State Commission, by the express provisions of the Liquor Control Act.