Court Opinion

ID: 9852054
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:23:49.684891+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:21.572817
License: Public Domain

Levin, J.
(concurring). I agree with the Court’s construction of the dramshop act, and with the decision that plaintiffs’ complaints should be dismissed. I have therefore signed the opinion of the Court.
The opinion states:
"It is implicit of course that 'persons’ maintaining operations tantamount to those embraced within the foregoing class but who have failed to obtain or maintain the required licensing are equally chargeable under the 'dramshop’ provisions of the act.”
It does not appear that Alcamo’s would have financially benefitted from greater consumption of alcoholic beverages at the wedding reception. The fee for setting up a keg of beer was $12 or less and the charge for the waiter’s services was not related to the consumption of such beverages.