Tennessee § 57-3-214 - Revocation, suspension or denial of license or permit.

§ 57-3-214. Revocation, suspension or denial of license or permit.

Whenever, under this chapter, the commission is authorized to revoke a license or permit issued by it, except in those cases where revocation is mandatory, it may, if, in its discretion, it feels that revocation of the license or permit is too drastic a penalty, suspend the license or permit, and the procedure for such suspension and the review of such suspension order shall be the same as that prescribed herein for revocation of licenses or permits issued under this chapter. If a revocation of license is being contemplated with respect to a retailer's license on premises owned by a person, firm or corporation not the licensee, a copy of the notice sent to the licensee shall also be sent to the owner at the address on record with the commission. The commission or other employee designated by the commission is empowered to subpoena witnesses and compel their attendance and the production of records, memoranda, papers and other documents at any hearing authorized under this section. At all hearings provided for herein, the commission shall provide a stenographer to take a stenographic record of the evidence adduced at such hearing. The applicant, licensee, permittee, or protestant shall be entitled to a copy of the stenographic record, upon application thereof, and upon paying the reasonable cost thereof to be fixed by the commission. The commission may require the applicant to bear the costs of any hearing required on the application including any fees to court reporter and preparation and copying of a transcript or stenographic record of such hearing. All such costs must be paid by the applicant before it may receive its license. No judge of any court shall have the authority to supersede, stay or enjoin any order of revocation of the commission issued pursuant to a hearing authorized under this section, but such order shall remain in full force and effect until the final decision by the supreme court except where the judgment of the circuit court is unappealed from and has become a final judgment. Acts 1939, ch. 49, § 14; 1941, ch. 113, § 1; 1945, ch. 85, §§ 1, 2; 1949, ch. 284, § 8; C. Supp. 1950, § 6648.17; impl. am. Acts 1963, ch. 257, § 30; Acts 1970, ch. 469, § 1; 1977, ch. 461, § 2; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 57-127; Acts 1981, ch. 449, § 2; 1981, ch. 465, §§ 1-3; 1982, ch. 877, § 1; 1986, ch. 738, § 3. Compiler's Notes. To the extent that they conflict or are inconsistent with the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, compiled in title 4, ch. 5, the provisions in this section for judicial review of the commission's orders are superseded and repealed. Metropolitan Gov't v. Shacklett, 554 S.W.2d 601 (Tenn. 1977). This section may be affected by T.R.A.P 24. Cross-References. Gifts or bribes to commission members, mandatory revocation, § 57-1-110 . Name on delinquent tax report three times in year, mandatory revocation, § 57-1-207 . Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 16 Tenn. Juris., Intoxicating Liquors, §§ 8, 9. Law Reviews. Methods of Judicial Review over Administrative Actions in Tennessee, 13 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 657 (1984). NOTES TO DECISIONS 1. Constitutionality. 2. Revocation of License. 3. Review of Action of Commission. 1. Constitutionality. Provision that no revocation order issued by the commission was to be superseded until final judgment by the supreme court did not violate Tenn. Const., art. VI, § 8, or art. VI, § 10. Terry v. Evans, 189 Tenn. 345, 225 S.W.2d 255, 1949 Tenn. LEXIS 436 (1949). 2. Revocation of License. A license for a fixed period should not be withdrawn or canceled during the period unless there is fault on the part of the person holding the license. Wise v. McCanless, 183 Tenn. 107, 191 S.W.2d 169, 1945 Tenn. LEXIS 278 (1945). Commission had discretionary authority to revoke licenses of retailers who were doing a wholesale business. Little v. MacFarland, 206 Tenn. 665, 337 S.W.2d 233, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 416 (1960). Action by commission to revoke licenses was not a criminal proceeding but was purely to show that holders of licenses had not complied with agreement with the state made through the commission. Little v. MacFarland, 206 Tenn. 665, 337 S.W.2d 233, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 416 (1960). In proceeding to revoke licenses of retailers for doing a wholesale business, commission could take into account the fact that none of the parties took the stand to refute, explain or amplify the evidence presented. Little v. MacFarland, 206 Tenn. 665, 337 S.W.2d 233, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 416 (1960). 3. Review of Action of Commission. Writ of certiorari to review action of commission only brought up question of whether it exceeded its authority or acted illegally, arbitrarily or fraudulently; and if material evidence supported its finding, such finding would be sustained by the court. Little v. MacFarland, 206 Tenn. 665, 337 S.W.2d 233, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 416 (1960). A case before the court pursuant to writ of certiorari raises only the questions of action beyond jurisdiction, or illegal, arbitrary or fraudulent actions. Chattanooga v. Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Com., 525 S.W.2d 470, 1975 Tenn. LEXIS 658 (Tenn. 1975). Cases may be brought directly to the chancery court for review in the first instance pursuant to the administrative procedures act. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County v. Shacklett, 554 S.W.2d 601, 1977 Tenn. LEXIS 640 (Tenn. 1977). Where applications for liquor licenses were considered by the alcoholic beverage commission after the effective date of the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, that act superseded and repealed the provisions for judicial review of the commission's orders to the extent of any conflict or inconsistency in the two sets of statutory provisions. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County v. Shacklett, 554 S.W.2d 601, 1977 Tenn. LEXIS 640 (Tenn. 1977).