Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Ozment v. Lance

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided June 30, 1982No. 81-397Published

1Concurrence

JUSTICE WELCH,

specially concurring:

In analyzing the plaintiff’s cause of action under the Marion liquor control ordinance, the majority observes that the minor was not employed in violation of that ordinance, which prohibits minors from “drawing, pouring, mixing or serving alcohol.” I do not agree, because I believe that the term “serving” is broad enough to proscribe the conduct of the plaintiff in bringing beer to the motel room. See Hensen v. City of Chicago (1953), 415 Ill. 564, 570, 114 N.E.2d 778, 782; Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2075, “serve,” definition 5b (1961).

The…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Barthel v. Illinois Central Gulf RailroadIllinois Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Henson v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1953
  3. Sturges & Burn Manufacturing Co. v. BeauchampSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
  4. Beauchamp v. Sturges & Burn Manufacturing Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1911
  5. Tavern Owners Ass'n of Lake County, Illinois, Inc. v. County of LakeAppellate Court of Illinois · 1977

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API