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. Jangles ll-lodges,

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Revenue

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
South Carolina Department of Revenue

Respondents:
Jangles ll-lodges,
516 N. Main Street, Mauldin, S.C.
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
98-ALJ-17-0472-CC

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

ORDERS:

CONSENT ORDER

T his matter comes before me on the citation issued by the South Carolina Department of Revenue against the respondent for violations of S.C. Code Ann §§ 12-212720(C) and 12-21-2804 (Supp. 1996). On March 29, 1996, Respondent was maintaining for use four stations on a video game machine without having displayed licenses on those stations as required by Section 12-21-2720(C) as amended June 29, 1995. Respondent had purchased the one license displayed on the machine prior to the effective date of the amendment requiring each station to have its own license. In addition, the Department had cited Respondent for having snore than five machines at a shingle place or premises. Prior to a hearing, the parties reached an agreement resolving the matter, and that agreement is incorporated Into this Order.

The agreement between the parties is as follows:

1. The Respondent agrees to pay to the Petitioner a. fine of ten thousand ($10,000.00) dollars within, thirty days after the South Carolina Supreme Court either denies certiorari or affirms the case of S.C. Department of Revenue vs. Rosemary Coin, Inc. Opinion No. 2840, S.C. Ct. App. filed May 4, 1998. If the Rosemary Coin, case is reversed by the South Carolina Supreme Court no penalty will be paid, and all charges will be dismissed.



2. The Petitioner agrees to dismiss the single place or premises violation regardless of the outcome of the Rosemary Coin case.

3. The parries agree that this is a settlement agreement, and is not an admission of liability by either party.

I find the above settlement to be flair and equitable, approve such settlement, and hereby Order its adoption

WE SO CONSENT:

By:

Nicholas P. Sipe, Chief Counsel for

Regulatory Litigation

Attorney tor Petitioner

By:

Zoe Sanders Nettles, Esq.

Nelson, Mullins, Riley, & Scarborough, LLP

Attorney for Respondent

IT IS SO ORDERED.

JOHN D. GEATHERS

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE



December 2, 1998

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2021 South Carolina Administrative Law Court