Legal Opinion
Laube v. Stroh
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 6, 1992No. Docket Nos. A050709, A052207PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
HANING, J.
In these consolidated cases, petitioners are liquor licensees who suffered suspension or revocation of their liquor licenses because they allegedly “permitted” drug sales in their establishments. Neither licensee knew or had reason to know of the drug trafficking. In each case the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (Department) took action against petitioners’ licenses on the basis of its interpretation of McFaddin San Diego 1130, Inc. v. Stroh (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 1384 [257 Cal.Rptr. 8]. McFaddin held that a liquor licensee “permits” drug activity when he or she fails…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Harris v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- Marcucci v. Board of EqualizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- Mercurio v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage ControlCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- Swegle v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Endo v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Sea Horse Ranch, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
- McGuire v. DEAN J. CURRYSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2009
- Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- Full Moon Saloon, Inc. v. City of LovelandColorado Court of Appeals · 2005
- Santa Ana Food Market, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.