• LinkedIn Social Icon
  • Twitter Social Icon
  • Google+ Social Icon

Significant Cases

Date

September 25, 2019

 

 

 

 

September 11, 2019

 

 

 

 

April 25, 2019

 

 

April 12, 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

November 14, 2018

 

November 12, 2018

 

 

 

 

 

 

October 31, 2018

 

 

 

March 16, 2018

 

 

January 26, 2018

 

 

 

December 19, 2017

 

 

 

October 10, 2017

 

 

March 26, 2017

 

 

 

 

March 22, 2017

 

January 9, 2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

December 21, 2015

 

 

 

December 15, 2015

September 8, 2015

 

 

 

October 13, 2014

May 17, 2013

December 19, 2011

September 23, 2010

 

June 28, 2010

January 29, 2010

 

 

January 12, 2010

 

October 27, 2009

 

July 17, 2009

 

 

 

July 13, 2009

 

 

April 27, 2009

 

 

November 20, 2008

 

 

September 8, 2008

 

 

July 16, 2007

Case

In Re Original Application of ISD Chittagong Inc. d/b/a Kinny's Food Store; before Tarrant County Court.

 

Chittagong Inc. d/b/a Kinny's Food Store.

In Re Original Application of 200 Carroll FW Investors LLC d/b/a Tulane's; City of Fort Worth Zoning Case No. ZC-19-125.

 

Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. Kootenai Incorporated d/b/a The Old Crow, SOAH Docket No. 458-19-2976.

In Re Renewal Application of Big Boyz Beer/Wine & Groceries LLC d/b/a Big Boyz Beer/Wine & Groceries LLC; Dallas County Court at Law No. 5.

 

 

 

In Re Original Application of Bull Hide Creek LLC d/b/a Bull Hide Creek Texas; Falls County Court.

Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. BMB Dining Services (Fuqua) Inc. d/b/a Bombshells; SOAH Docket No. 458-18-17901 (November 12, 2018) (Stoebner, ALJ).

 

 

 

In Re Original Application of Tempe Creek Vineyard & Farms LLC d/b/a Tempe Creek Vineyard; before Polk County Court.

Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. Off the Air d/b/a Nick's Sports Grill; TABC Docket No. 631290.

Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. El Mercadito Supermarket Inc. d/b/a El Mercadito Supermarket; TABC Docket No. 648745.

 

Bachman Northwest Hwy Community Association v. Dallas Cottage Bar d/b/a The Cottage; SOAH Docket No. 458-17-2446.

In Re Original Application of Sanvi Global Inc.; City of Arlington Resolution No. 17-10.4.

 

Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. Linares Guarajuanto Inv. d/b/a Linares Guanajuato; Dallas County Court at Law No. 5: Misc. Docket; BG283982.

 

In Re Original Application of KSF Realty Group LLC d/b/a Caddo Mills Food Mart; before Hunt County Court

Docket No. DC-16-16507; New Millennium Restaurants Group Inc. d/b/a Sports City Café v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission; In the District Court of Dallas County; 68 Judicial District.

 

In Re New Millennium Restaurant Group Inc. d/b/a Sports City Café; RM692636.

 

 

In Re Original Application of Hawk’s Pantry Inc.; City of Arlington Resolution No. 15-314.

TABC v. Breadwinners Café; SOAH Docket No. 458-15-0959.

 

 

 

In the County Court of Law No. 3, Tarrant County, Texas; TABC and The Grand Prairie Police Department v. Eduardo Moreno Reyna d/b/a Ritz.

Before the County Judge of McClellan County, Texas; Docket No. 05-09-13; TABC v. Trinity and Trinity Group L.L.C. d/b/a McGregor Fast Stop and Burger King.

 

In the County Court at Law No. 5; Misc. Docket; TABC v. Vilma Vincente d/b/a San Francisco Night Club.

 

TABC v. Foster’s Private Club; SOAH Docket No. 458-10-4621.

 

In the District Court of Dallas County, Texas; 162nd Judicial District; Cause No. 10-07536; TABC v. Teklu Woldu Gezhahager d/b/a El Taco Grande Convenience Store.

 

Before the County Judge of Tarrant County, Texas; Index No. 021-101; TABC v. Khalil’s Zoom In Market.

 

TABC v. El Jaguar Night Club; TABC Docket No. 586137

 

TABC v. Teklu Woldu Gezhahager d/b/a El Taco Grande Convenience Store

 

 

In the District Court of Dallas County; 298th Judicial District Court; Chin Kyu Kim d/b/a Billar De Acapulco, No. 09-08607

 

TABC v. Genoveva Umanzor d/b/a Orientena Night Club II, SOAH Docket No. 458-09-3544

 

TABC v. E.F. Corp. d/b/a Escapade 2001, SOAH Docket No. 458-09-0896

 

 

TABC v. Minnie’s Place, SOAH Docket No. 458-08-4272

 

 

 

 

 

TABC v. Saze Inc. d/b/a New Way Food Store, SOAH Docket No. 458-08-2521

 

 

TABC v. Up to Par Private Club,  SOAH Docket No. 458-07-2768

Description

Application granted. City's ordinance prohibiting alcohol sales within 300 ft of daycare did not apply to the type of permit applicant sought.

 

Conditional use permit granted. City Council granted conditional use permit for business to be exempt from 50% non-alcohol revenue requirement.

 

Case dismissed. Sale to intoxicated person case dismissed by TABC for insufficient evidence.

 

Application granted. After court initially denied its renewal application, Applicant established that its application was sufficient and that the place or manner in which the applicant operated its business did not violate public health and safety.

 

Application granted. City secretary certified that location is wet for mixed beverage permits after initially refusing to do so.

 

No violations found. Respondent proved that: On two separate occasions a patron was not intoxicated; Respondent was not negligent in a sale to a minor case because minor appeared over 21; Respondent did not permit minor to possess an alcoholic beverage.

Application granted. Being located in a dry county did not affect applicant's ability to apply for a winery permit.

 

 

Application granted. Applicant's alcohol sales ratio deemed in compliance after TABC audit. 

 

 

Application granted. Charter reinstated with the Secretary of State and entity in good standing with Comptroller of Public Accounts.

Application granted. The place or manner in which the applicant operated its business did not violate public health and safety. 

 

Variance granted. City Council granted variance to operate business within 300 feet of a public school.

 

Application granted. The place or manner in which the Applicant operated its business did not violate public health and safety. 

 

 

Application granted. City's ordinance prohibiting alcohol sales within 300 ft of daycare did not apply to the type of permit applicant sought. 

TABC order reversed. Judgment Rendered for Permittee. RM calculation was in error; Food and Beverage Statute declared unconstitutional.

 

 

 

Summary suspension lifted. Customer shot on premise. TABC Summary Suspension Lifted.

 

 

Variance granted. City Council granted variance to operate business within 300 feet of a public school.

 

No violation. Employee was killed when crossing street after leaving work. Employee’s BAC Test not reliable and TABC failed to prove employee was intoxicated.

 

 

Application granted. Respondent established that crime in area did not result from its operations and that no unlawful ownership existed.

 

Application granted. Respondent proved the Applicant was not a convicted felon and not unqualified to hold the permit.

 

 

 

Application granted. Respondent established that she did not make false statements on her application for permit.

 

Application granted. Respondent proved business operations would not cause traffic hazards or negatively impact area.

 

Order reversed. TABC Order suspending permit reversed.

 

 

 

 

Application granted. Respondent established that the business would not violate safety, health, and welfare of area.

 

Case dismissed. Drink solicitation case dismissed by TABC for insufficient evidence.

 

No violation. Respondent established in a sale to minor case that minor used a fake ID and Respondent should not be penalized.

 

Order reversed. District Judge reversed TABC Order.

 

 

 

No violation. Respondent proved person on the premises soliciting drinks was not Respondent’s employee, agent, or servant.

 

Application granted. The place or manner in which the Applicant operated its business did not violate public health and safety. 

Application granted. Respondent demonstrated that a prior bootlegging conviction was not a crime of moral turpitude and the fact Respondent’s business was located in a high crime area does not justify denial of the original application.

 

Application granted. Respondent established that past minor related violations and cancellation of permit would not violate safety, health, and welfare of area.

 

Application granted. Respondent established that golf course customers did not present traffic hazard and that stray golf balls did not result from intoxicated patrons.