BBCB Points Relied On Points and Critique Dean Ellen Suni Fall 2014 These materials are for teaching purposes only. I hope using these slides is helpful.

Instructions As you proceed, read each Point developed by one of your colleagues carefully. Think seriously about whether it complies, and if not, specifically why not. Once you have your answer, click and see how your answer compares to mine. Make sure you understand each slide before moving on. This is harder than it may appear.

The trial court erred in finding there was sufficient evidence to support the revocation of BBCB’s liquor license based on the testimony presented at the hearing because said testimony was not sufficient to establish the overwhelming number of complaints generated from the business in that the testimony of three witnesses at trial was not enough to establish an overwhelming number of noise complaints. This Point has issues. 1.The “Trial court erred” is not correct because the specific action challenged was affirming the revocation. 2.The “because” is missing the law. “Overwhelming number of complaints” is not the requisite legal standard. And while “sufficient evidence to support” is part of the standard of review, it appears in the “trial court erred” rather than in the “because.” 3.“In that” would probably be OK except for erroneous legal standard.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE CITY’S REVOCATION OF BBCB’S LICQUOR LICENSE BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT BBCB WAS, AT ALL TIMES, NOT AN ORDERLY PLACE OF BUSINESS WAS NOT SUBSTANTIAL IN THAT THE CITY ONLY DOCUMENTED FIVE INSTANCES OF NONCOMPLIANCE AND MEASURED DECIBLE READINGS ON ONE OCCASION OVER THE COURSE OF THE 36 MONTHS OF OPERATING BBCB’S ESTABLISHMENT. 1.The “trial court erred” portion appears to be fine. 2.The “because” has both aspects of the legal rule – that there was substantial evidence to support the decision and the ordinance required that it be an “orderly place of business”, but the rules are not identified from the particular ordinance and are somewhat “mushed together.” 3.The “in that” appears OK, although I would link it back to the legal standard

1.The “trial court erred ” portion appears OK except it should indicate what the revocation was 2.There really is no “because” here, either the word itself or the law. At best there’s mention of the “substantial evidence” standard, but no idea of substantive standard. 3.No real “in that” – some mention of facts but hard to get what the relevance is. This would likely be viewed as non-complying and get “kicked.” The trial court erred in affirming the city’s revocation by failing to show substantial evidence that would supporting the claim that there were more than a single direct testimony and a testimony by Echols on behalf of two additional individuals who complained and no claim on how many complaints were made by each person equaling the 50 complaints as alleged.

The trial court erred in affirming the City’s revocation of BBCB’s liquor license because the record is insufficient to support the grounds on which the City revoked its liquor license, in that the record does not establish The Bunker had not maintained an orderly place of business at all times. 1.The “trial court erred” appears OK 2.The “because” starts out OK looking at the standard of review, but never gets to the substantive standard 3.The “in that” contains the rest of the law - had not maintained an orderly place of business – without reference to source, rather than containing the relevant facts that show how the legal rule applies here

The Trial Court did not err in affirming the City’s revocation of The Bunker’s liquor license because § of the Code permits revocation of a liquor license when it is found that a business has not at all times maintained an orderly place, and there was sufficient evidence to show that The Bunker violated § in that there were numerous police calls regarding noise and/or other nuisance at the licensed premises and that the Bunker failed to abate said noise and nuisance. 1.First part OK, although could say “The trial court was correct... “ 2.Good “because” – both parts of the standard are included. Could indicate what Code is involved 3.The “in that” contains facts This is a good effort – has all the parts, doesn’t mix components.

1.OK, although the full name is probably not necessary 2.“Because” is OK but I might identify source of Code and maybe not use “Defendant” 3.“In that” is too detailed. As Judge Smith said, go with ultimate, not evidentiary facts. Good effort to tie it together in the end. Good effort. The trial court was correct in affirming the City of Independence’s revocation of Big Bob’s County Bunker’s (BBCB) city liquor license because the finding that Defendant was in violation of city ordinance § , failure to maintain, at all times, an orderly place of business, is supported by substantial evidence in that the record contains testimony of Officer Terry Hartwig and Officer Harold Echols who investigated the case, three neighbor citizens (Valerie Logan, Ann LeCluyse and Julie LeCluyse) who complained of BBCB’s excessive noise and nuisance on multiple occasions, and letters of abatement from the City of Independence, outlining that BBCB had violated city ordinance § by producing noise in excess of 50 (fifty) decibels, all of which provided sufficient grounds for suspension or revocation of a license under § for not maintain an orderly place of business at all times.

The ruling of the trial court upholding the revocation of BBCB’s liquor license should be affirmed because substantial evidence showed that appellants did not at all times maintain an orderly place pursuant to Section , setting forth the permissible grounds for suspension or revocation of a liquor license, in that there were numerous complaints from neighbors concerning excessive noise at The Bunker that BBCB failed to abate, despite numerous letters of abatement from the City. 1.The “court erred/was correct” formulation is not correct here. Stick with “the trial court was correct” formulation. 2.The “because” is OK, although section of what? 3.The “in that” appears generally OK.

Dean Suni samples: The trial court erred in affirming the City's revocation of appellant BBCB’s liquor license because the court can only uphold revocation under § of the City of Independence Code where the record contains substantial evidence that the licensee has failed to maintain an orderly place of business, and the record in this case does not contain substantial evidence to support such a failure in that the only evidence in the record relates to noise complaints, and mere noise is not sufficient to establish that the operation of a place of business is not orderly. The trial court was correct in affirming the City's revocation of Appellant BBCB’s liquor license because revocation is permitted under § of the City of Independence Code where the City has proven that the licensee has not maintained an orderly place of business, which can be based on excessive noise, and the record in this case contains substantial evidence to support such a finding in that it showed there were numerous complaints about excessive noise that required the police be called in excess of thirty times and decibel levels were above legal limits when tested.