SNH Corp. v. VA ABC Board ( 1996 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Baker, Willis, and Overton
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
SNH CORPORATION,
t/a SHILLA GARDEN RESTAURANT
v. Record No. 0746-95-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON
VIRGINIA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE JANUARY 11, 1996
CONTROL BOARD
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
Jane Marum Roush, Judge
Jeanne Swanick Lauer (P. H. Harrington, Jr.;
Lauer & Lauer, P.C., on brief), for
appellant.
John Patrick Griffin, Assistant Attorney
General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney
General; Michael K. Jackson, Senior Assistant
Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
SNH Corporation, operating Shilla Garden Restaurant, appeals
from a trial court's order affirming the Alcoholic Beverage
Control (ABC) Board's decision to revoke its beer and wine and
mixed beverage licenses. Finding no error, we affirm the
judgment.
In the spring of 1994 Shilla Garden was investigated by the
Fairfax County Police and the ABC. At the close of this
investigation, a hearing officer heard testimony to determine
whether Shilla Garden had violated any laws or ABC regulations.
The hearing officer found that violations had occurred and fined
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
Shilla Garden a total of $1250 and suspended both licenses for 30
days. The ABC Board reviewed the decision and, after a hearing,
revoked both licenses. SNH Corporation appealed to the Circuit
Court, which found sufficient evidence in the record to support
the Board's decision.
On appeal, we review the facts in the light most favorable
to sustaining the Board's action and "take due account of the
presumption of official regularity, the experience and
specialized competence of the agency, and the purposes of the
basic law under which the agency has acted." Code § 9-6.14:17;
Atkinson v. Virginia ABC Comm'n, 1 Va. App. 172, 176, 336 S.E.2d
527, 530 (1985); Virginia ABC Comm'n v. York St. Inn, Inc., 220
Va. 310, 313, 257 S.E.2d 851, 853 (1979). Code § 9-6.14:17
limits the scope of review to whether there was "substantial
evidence in the agency record" to support the decision. State
Bd. of Health v. Godfrey, 223 Va. 423, 433, 290 S.E.2d 875,
879-80 (1982). "The phrase 'substantial evidence' refers to
'such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.'" Virginia Real Estate Comm'n
v. Bias, 226 Va. 264, 269, 308 S.E.2d 123, 125 (1983) (quoting
Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 299 (1938)).
Using this standard of review, we find sufficient evidence
in the record below to support the decision of the Board. The
Board acted within its statutory authority and committed no
error.
- 2 -
Affirmed.
- 3 -