Case Name: WESTWOOD v. MICHIGAN LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1971-07-29
Citations: 35 Mich. App. 393
Docket Number: Docket No. 10339
Parties: WESTWOOD v. MICHIGAN LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION
Judges: Before: Danhoe, P. J., and Bronson and O’Hara, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 35
Pages: 393–394

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.