Case ID: mich-app_35/html/0393-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WESTWOOD v. MICHIGAN LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION
    Appeal from Ingham, Marvin J. Salmon, J.
    Submitted Division 2 June 8, 1971, at Lansing.
    (Docket No. 10339.)
    Decided July 29, 1971.
    Appeal to the circuit court by Harry T. Westwood from a decision of the Liquor Control Commission denying his application for a Class C liquor license. Log Jam, Inc., was allowed to intervene as a defendant. Summary judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
    Remanded to the Liquor Control Commission for reconsideration.
    
      Vlachos & Carey and Bucknell, Gergely <& Foley, for plaintiff.
    
      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Franklin J. Rauner and Thomas R. Wheeker, Assistant Attorneys General, for defendant Liquor Control Commission.
    Before: Danhoe, P. J., and Bronson and O’Hara, JJ.
    
      
       Former Supreme Court Justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.
    
   Per Curiam.

The plaintiff has appealed from a judgment of the Circuit Court for the County of Ingham affirming a decision of the Liquor Control Commission denying his application for a Class 0 liquor license. Plaintiff’s application was denied by the commission because plaintiff’s place of business was within 500 feet of a church. MCLA § 436.17a [Stat Ann 1957 Rev § 18.988(1)]. Subsequent to the decision of the commission, § 17a of the Liquor Control Act was amended and the commission now has discretionary power to issue a Class C liquor license to the plaintiff even though plaintiff’s place of business may be within 500 feet of a church. Therefore, it is ordered that the cause be remanded to the Liquor Control Commission for reconsideration in light of MCLA 1971 Cum Supp § 436.17a [Stat Ann 1971 Cum Supp § 18.988(1)] and MCLA 1971 Cum Supp § 436.19c(a) [Stat Ann 1971 Cum Supp § 18.990(3)(a)].

We express no opinion as to the constitutionality of § 17a. We do not retain jurisdiction.