South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
James E. Dozier, d/b/a Spencers The Inlet Ladies Club vs. SCDOR

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Revenue

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
James E. Dozier, d/b/a Spencers The Inlet Ladies Club

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Revenue
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
96-ALJ-17-0084-CC

APPEARANCES:
James E. Dozier, (pro se) Petitioner
 

ORDERS:

ORDER AND DECISION

This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-1-55 (Supp. 1995) and

§§ 1-23-310, et seq. (1986 & Supp. 1995) upon application for an on-premises and off-premises beer and wine permit for 4551 Old King's Highway, Murrell's Inlet, South Carolina, filed by James E. Dozier with the South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation (hereinafter referred to as "DOR"). A hearing was held in Florence at the Florence City/County Complex on April 8, 1996. The issue considered was the suitability of the proposed business location. Although timely notice was given, the sole Protestant did not appear at the hearing. Petitioner moved for and was granted a default. The permit is hereby granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

By a preponderance of the evidence, I find:

(1) The applicant seeks an on-premises and off-premises beer and wine permit for

4551 Old King's Highway, Murrell's Inlet, South Carolina, having filed an application with DOR, AI #104802.

(2) Notice of the time, date, place, and subject matter of the hearing was given to all parties and protestant.



(3) DOR did not appear at the hearing, having been excused from participation upon motion granted, on the basis that the department had no evidence concerning suitability of this location and but for the protest, would have issued this permit.

(4) The hearing was scheduled to commence at 11:00 a.m., April 8, 1996.

At 11:20 a.m., the hearing began.

(5) Although A. Lane Cribb, Sheriff of Georgetown County, previously filed a written protest to the application, no protestants were present at the hearing to testify in opposition to the application. Sheriff Cribb did not make contact with the Court to request a continuance nor did he inform the Court that he would not appear.

(6) Applicant operates the proposed location as a lounge. Until a permit is granted, patrons are allowed to bring in their own beverages.

(7) The proposed location has been operated as club or lounge for approximately forty years, and has been licensed to sell beer and wine during most of that same period.

(8) The most recent former owner of the proposed location, Tony Ford, had his permit revoked by the ABC Commission in 1993.

(9) James E. Dozier had no connection with Ford or the ownership or operation of the proposed location while previously licensed.

(10) Dozier has over seven years experience working in bars and restaurants in the Grand Strand area.

(11) The applicant is over twenty-one years of age, is a citizen of the State of South Carolina, and has maintained his principal residence in South Carolina for more than thirty days.

(12) The applicant has not had a permit/license revoked in the last two years.

(13) The applicant is of good moral character.

(14) Notice of the application appeared in a newspaper of general circulation in the area of the proposed location for three consecutive weeks and was posted at the proposed location for fifteen days.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude as a matter of law the following:

(1) S.C. Code Ann. § 61-1-55 (Supp. 1995) provides that the South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division is empowered to hear this case pursuant to Chapter 23 of Title I of the 1976 Code, as amended.

(2) S.C. Code Ann. § 61-9-320 (Supp. 1995) provides the criteria to be met by an applicant for a beer and wine permit in South Carolina.

(3) As the trier of fact, an administrative law judge is authorized to determine the fitness or suitability of the proposed business location of an applicant for a permit to sell beer and wine

using broad but not unbridled discretion. Byers v. S.C. ABC Commission, 281 S.C. 566, 316 S.E.2d 705 (Ct. App. 1984).

(4) The determination of suitability of a location is not necessarily a function solely of geography. It involves an infinite variety of considerations related to the nature and operation of the proposed business and its impact on the community within which it is to be located. Kearney v. Allen, 287 S.C. 324, 338 S.E.2d 335 (1985).

(5) The proposed location is suitable and proper, in light of the history of the proposed location over the past forty years, the experience of the Petitioner, and the lack of any evidence to suggest that past operation of the location under Petitioner's management has been detrimental to the surrounding community.

(6) Applicant meets the statutory requirements for issuance of a beer and wine permit.

(7) Protestant's failure to appear constitutes default under ALJD Rule 23.

ORDER

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that DOR issue to Petitioner the on-premises and

off-premises beer and wine permit applied for.



_____________________________________

STEPHEN P. BATES

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

April 19, 1996

Columbia, South Carolina


 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2025 South Carolina Administrative Law Court