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

Wilbur E. Moses, d/b/a W&W Grocery and Lounge vs. SCDOR

South Carolina Department of Revenue

Wilbur E. Moses, d/b/a W&W Grocery and Lounge

South Carolina Department of Revenue and Deborah Ford Timmons,

For the Petitioner: Pro Se

For the Respondent/South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation: No Appearance

For Timmons: Pro Se




This matter comes before the Administrative Law Judge Division pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§61-1-55, et seq. (Supp. 1993) and S. C. Code Ann. §§1-23-310 et seq. (1986 and Supp. 1993) for a contested case hearing. The Applicant, Wilbur Earl Moses, seeks an on-premise beer and wine permit for W. W. Grocery and Lounge. A hearing was held on April 18, 1995 at the office of Administrative Law Judge Division, 1205 Pendleton Street, Columbia, South Carolina.

The permit requested by the Applicant is denied.


Having observed the witnesses and exhibits presented at the hearing and closely passed upon their credibility, taking into consideration the burden of persuasion by the Parties or Protestants, I make the following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of evidence:

1. The court has subject matter jurisdiction of this case.

2. The Applicant seeks an on-premise beer and wine permit for W. W. Grocery and Lounge at 1018 S. Christopher Lane, Florence, South Carolina.

3. Notice of the time, date, place and subject matter of the hearing was given to the Applicant, Protestants, and South Carolina Department of Revenue.

4. The qualifications set forth in S. C. Code Ann. § 61-9-320 (Supp. 1993) concerning the residency and age of the Applicant are properly established. Furthermore, the Applicant has not had a permit or license revoked within the last two years.

5. The Applicant failed to ensure that notice of his seeking an application was properly maintained at the proposed location.

6. The Applicant held a beer and wine permit at the proposed location several years previously. While he held that permit the residents of the local area experienced problems with heavy and congested traffic. The patrons of the business blocked the entrances to their homes making it difficult to "come and go" from their own residences. The Applicant's business also produced loud music and the individuals attending his facility exhibited rowdy behavior. The Applicant's response to his patrons behavior was that he can't control what occurs outside his business. However, that fact is exemplary of the very reason why this proposed location is not suitable.

7. A church is located approximately 350 feet away from the proposed location.

8. The proposed location is situated in the middle of an established residential neighborhood. Residents surround the proposed location on all sides. In fact, the proposed location has apparently been a residence itself in the past.

9. Although there is no playground in the area, children live in the neighborhood where the Applicant seeks this permit. The children would be exposed to increased traffic risks and dangers as well as the behavior of the patrons of this proposed location.

10. The proposed location is unsuitable for either an on or off-premise beer and wine permit.


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

1. Section 1-23-600 S.C. Code Ann. (Supp. 1993) grants jurisdiction to the Administrative Law Judge Division to hear contested cases under the Administrative Procedures Act.

2. Section 61-1-55 S.C. Code Ann. (Supp. 1993) grants to the Administrative Law Judge Division the powers, duties and responsibilities as hearing officer in protested and contested matters governing alcoholic beverages, beer and wine.

3. Section 61-9-320 S.C. Code Ann. (Supp. 1993) sets forth the requirements for the issuance of an on or off premise beer and wine permit.

4. As trier of fact, an Administrative Law Judge is authorized to determine the fitness or suitability of the proposed location of an applicant for a permit or license to sell alcohol, beer or wine using broad but not unbridled discretion. Byers v. S. C. ABC Commission, 316 S.E. 2d 705 (S.C. App. 1984).

5. The determination of suitability of a location is not necessarily a function 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 located. Kearney v. Allen, 287 S.C. 324, 338 S.E. 2d 335 (1985).


Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the application of Wilbur E. Moses for an on-premise beer and wine permit be denied.


Ralph King Anderson, III

Administrative Law Judge

April 27, 1995

Columbia, South Carolina

Brown Bldg.






Copyright © 2022 South Carolina Administrative Law Court