Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
Find Similar Cases by Filters
You can browse Case Laws by Courts, or by your need.
Find 49 similar cases
DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO vs. JOHHNNY W. ABNAR, D/B/A MANHATTAN RESTAURANT, 78-001890 (1978)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 78-001890 Latest Update: Mar. 05, 1979

Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensee holding a 4COP SRX beverage license as a special restaurant licensee. The Respondent originally applied for a 4COP SRX license on January 26, 1977; however, at that time, he received licensure only as a 2COP. On the 2COP application, the Respondent stated that he did not have any partners. The Respondent reapplied for a 4COP SRX license two months later, at which time he was inspected and approved. This application, which was typed by the local beverage office from the original application filed by the Respondent, did not reflect that the Respondent had any partners in this business. The Respondent signed this application, which was brought to the Manhattan Restaurant by the officers conducting the inspection. Between the approval of his original license and application for the 4COP SRX license, the Respondent had entered into a limited partnership agreement with Tommie Battie. Subsequent to obtaining their license as a 4COP SRX, Battie and the Respondent had a disagreement over the financial arrangements in their limited partnership agreement. Battie reported to the local beverage office that he was a limited partner in this business. On the same afternoon that Battie advised the Beverage Department that he was a limited partner, agents of the local office inspected the Respondent's licensed premises at approximately 2:00 p.m. At the time the Respondent was inspected certain alleged deficiencies were reported. The Respondent allegedly did not have sufficient food on hand to serve 150 patrons a full-course meal and allegedly did not have business records on the premises regarding his sales of alcoholic beverages, and food and non- alcoholic beverages. Testimony was received regarding an inventory made of the premises at the time of the inspection. The Division was directed to copy the original inventory report and file this report as a late-filed exhibit. As of this date, this inventory has not been filed with the Hearing Officer, and it is hereby excluded from this record. The testimony revealed that the Respondent had on hand many pounds of chicken and pork chops, two loaves of bread, several large cans of green beans and potato salad, and two heads of lettuce. The Manhattan Restaurant's normal business day was from 5:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. The Respondent's sister assisted the Respondent in planning the meals. She made a list of needed grocery items when she arrived at approximately 4:00 to 4:30 p.m., and the Respondent picked up these items at a local grocery. The Respondent was bringing in chicken from a grocery shortly after the inspectors arrived at 2:00 p.m. The Respondent admitted that his business records were not on the premises and that the records which he had kept were deficient; but he stated that in the intervening year since he was inspected, he had improved his record- keeping system and now maintained adequate records on the premises. The Respondent admitted that he had not disclosed his limited partnership with Battie on his second application but had signed the application at the time of the inspection of the premises, not fully realizing that he was required to reveal Battie's interest in the business. Since the filing of this complaint, the Respondent has purchased Battie's interest in the business.

Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and facts and mitigation, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division assess a civil penalty in the amount of $350.00 against the Respondent for violation of Rules 7A-3.14 and 7A-2.14, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 561.17, Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of February, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of February, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary J.M. Gallay, Esq. Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32304 Jack William Windt, Esq. 1939 Golf Street Sarasota, FL 33577

Florida Laws (4) 561.17775.081775.084837.02
# 5
CHARLES FEDERMAN vs. DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING, 80-001128RX (1980)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 80-001128RX Latest Update: Feb. 20, 1981

Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a horse trainer licensed in the State of Florida and holds Occupational License No. L-25378. Respondent is a division of the Department of Business Regulations, and is charged by law with regulatory authority over Florida's pari-mutuel wagering industry. On December 12, 1979, Respondent issued a Notice to Show Cause, seeking to revoke Petitioner's occupational license, alleging that Petitioner had violated Rules 7E-4.25(12)(a), 7E-4.05 and 7E-4.25(13), Florida Administrative Code. Simultaneously with the issuance of the Notice to Show Cause, Respondent issued an Emergency Order indefinitely suspending Petitioner's occupational license. The Notice to Show Cause alleged that Petitioner was the trainer of the horse Hanker Chief who ran in and won the ninth race at Tourist Attractions (Pompano Park) on November 28, 1979, and that a urine sample taken from the horse and analyzed by Respondent was shown to contain butorphanol, which was alleged to be a narcotic agonist-antagonist, analgesic. An Amended Notice to Show Cause alleged that butorphanol was a "narcotic agonist - antagonist, analgesic" and was also a "narcotic and a depressant." Subsequently, a Second Amended Notice to Show Cause alleged that butorphanol was a "narcotic agonist - antagonist analgesic" and also a "depressant or stimulant." The subject matter alleged in the Notice to Show Cause, as amended, is presently pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings in Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 80-817.

Florida Laws (4) 120.54120.56120.57500.02
# 7

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer