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:
SCDOR vs. Michael W. Mims, d/b/a Palmetto Games

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Revenue

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
South Carolina Department of Revenue

Respondents:
Michael W. Mims, d/b/a Palmetto Games
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
97-ALJ-17-0193-CC

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

ORDERS:

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR STAY

This matter comes before me on Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration and Respondent's Motion for Stay of the Order and Decision issued in the above-captioned case on July 3, 1997. For the following reasons, the motions are DENIED.

Pursuant to ALJD Rule 29(C), the Administrative Law Judge will grant a Motion for Reconsideration subject to the following reasons set forth in Rule 60(B) (1 through 5), SCRCP:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

(3) fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party;

(4) the judgment is void;

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application.

Further, "[i]n cases permitting an agency to reconsider its decision, courts have emphasized that an agency's power to reconsider or rehear a case is not an arbitrary one, and such power should be exercised only when there is justification and good cause; i.e., newly discovered evidence, fraud, surprise, mistake, inadvertence or change in conditions." Bennett v. City of Clemson, 293 S.C. 64, 66-67, 358 S.E.2d 707, 708-709 (1987). (citing 2 Am.Jur.2d, Administrative Law, § 522 et seq. (1962 & Supp. 1986)).

In its Motion, Respondent does not present any legal rationale that would warrant reconsideration in this matter. Respondent has not cited to any newly discovered facts or evidence, any mistake or inadvertence, fraud, surprise, or any change in conditions to suggest that the findings or conclusions specifically referenced are incorrect and not in compliance with the statutory or decisional law of the state. Instead, Respondent reargues its position raised at the hearing and asks reconsideration of interpretation of the statutes. This tribunal has reviewed the arguments and the Order and finds no basis to reconsider the Order's findings of fact or conclusions of law. The facts clearly reveal that the Respondent failed or neglected to have information identifying the owner affixed to the Class III licensed video game machine at the time of the inspection. S.C. Code Ann. §§ 12-21-2738 and 12-21-2748 (Supp. 1996) do not require knowledge or intent as a prerequisite to violation of the statute. The Respondent therefore, has not demonstrated justification or good cause to reconsider the provisions of the Order. Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.

Respondent also moved for a stay of the Order pending reconsideration. Since the Motion for Reconsideration is denied, the motion for stay is also denied.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.



__________________________

ALISON RENEE LEE

Administrative Law Judge

August 6, 1997

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2022 South Carolina Administrative Law Court