P.G. Enterprises, Inc. v. Oregon Liquor Control Commission
Docket: OLCC-88-V-123; CA A61917
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon; August 29, 1990; Oregon; State Appellate Court
Petitioners sought review of the Oregon Liquor Control Commission's (OLCC) order to cancel a conditional liquor license granted to P.G. Enterprises, Inc. The OLCC had initially issued the license on February 12, 1988, despite identifying a record of alcohol abuse by Gustafson, the president of Enterprises, who agreed to conditions including abstaining from psychoactive substances. The OLCC cancelled the license after finding two violations of these conditions, which Gustafson admitted to on additional occasions, all related to alcohol consumption.
In determining the penalty, OLCC referenced its penalty schedule, noting aggravating factors such as multiple violations occurring shortly after the license was granted. The cancellation was deemed appropriate as it aligned with the pattern of violations and the initial conditional nature of the license, which would not have been granted without such conditions.
Petitioners argued against the cancellation, questioning the statutory authority for such a penalty. However, the court affirmed that OLCC possesses the authority to cancel or suspend licenses for violations of liquor control statutes, as outlined in ORS 472.141 and ORS 472.180. The court concluded that there was statutory backing for the cancellation and that the violations were indeed considered breaches of the liquor control regulations.
OAR 845-06-200(3) allows the Commission to propose penalties greater or lesser than guidelines based on aggravating or mitigating circumstances. A pattern of violations within two years may justify license cancellation due to a disregard for the law, particularly for a third violation of ORS 472.310(1), which OLCC proposed for Gustafson. The OLCC found a pattern of violations as an aggravating factor, noting that extraordinary circumstances were not necessary to increase penalties. Even without explicit statutory authorization for license cancellation, it was permissible due to prior findings that justified denial of the license on both statutory and rule grounds. The license was granted under the assurance of compliance, which was undermined by Gustafson's violations, leading to the cancellation.
OAR 845-05-025 outlines criteria for license issuance, emphasizing the importance of an applicant's history with alcohol or controlled substances. Under OAR 845-06-120, "licensee" includes anyone owning 10% or more of stock, while OAR 845-06-025 holds licensees accountable for violations by their agents. ORS 472.160 allows the Commission to refuse licensing for habitual excessive use of alcohol or drugs. The OLCC noted the absence of a specific penalty category for condition violations but aligned Gustafson’s violations with ORS 471.405(1), which prohibits selling alcohol outside the license's terms. The penalties for violations of ORS 472.310(1) and ORS 471.405(1) are consistent, and licenses cannot be renewed if grounds for refusal exist under ORS 472.160.
