Ark. Code Ann. » Title 3 Chapter 09
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 3-9-222 (2020)

Private clubs — Procedure for obtaining permit

✓ Arkansas Code release r76: Acts through about 2020 (2021-2025 sessions missing)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
    1. Application for a permit to operate as a private club may be made to the governing body of the county or municipality in which the private club seeks to be located.
    2. If the governing body of the county or municipality approves by ordinance an application for a permit to operate as a private club under subdivision (a)(1) of this section, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Division may issue a permit to operate as a private club to the applicant for the proposed location.
    1. The application for a private club shall be submitted to the division and accompanied by an annual permit fee of one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500).
    2. The application for a bed and breakfast private club shall be submitted to the division and accompanied by an annual permit fee of seventy-five dollars ($75.00).
    3. In an area in which the sale of intoxicating liquor has not been authorized by local option as provided under § 3-8-201 et seq., the application for a private club permit shall be submitted to the division and accompanied by an additional application fee of one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500).
    1. After filing an acceptable application with the Director of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Division, the applicant shall cause to be published at least one (1) time each week for four (4) consecutive weeks in a legal newspaper of general circulation in the city in which the premises are situated or, if the premises are not in a city, in a newspaper of general circulation for the locality where the business is to be conducted, a notice that the applicant has applied for a permit to dispense alcoholic beverages on the premises.
    2. The notice shall be in such form as the director shall prescribe by rule or order and shall be verified.
    3. The notice shall give the names of the managing agent and the nonprofit corporation or, in the case of a bed and breakfast private club, the name of the business owner, and shall state:
      1. That the manager, or in the case of a bed and breakfast private club, the owner, at least one (1) partner, or the majority stockholder is a citizen of Arkansas;
      2. That he or she is of good moral character;
      3. That he or she has never been convicted of a felony or had a license to sell or dispense alcoholic beverages revoked within the five (5) years preceding the date of the notice; and
      4. That he or she has never been convicted of violating the laws of this state or of any other state governing the sale or dispensing of alcoholic beverages.
    1. Within five (5) days after filing an application for a permit to dispense alcoholic beverages on the premises, a notice of the application shall be posted in a conspicuous place at the entrance to the premises.
    2. The applicant shall notify the director of the date when the notice is first posted.
    3. No permit shall be issued to any applicant until proper notice has been so posted on the premises for at least thirty (30) consecutive days.
      1. The notice shall be in such form as the director shall prescribe by rule or order.
      2. The notice shall be:
        1. At least eleven inches (11") in width and seventeen inches (17") in height; and
        2. Printed in black lettering on a yellow background.
    1. Upon receipt by the director of an application for a permit, written notice thereof, which shall include a copy of the application, the application shall immediately be mailed by the director to the sheriff, chief of police, if located within a city, prosecuting attorney of the locality in which the premises are situated, and city board of directors or other governing body of the city in which the premises are situated if within an incorporated area. The provisions of this section shall be retroactive to July 28, 1995.
    2. No license shall be issued by the director until at least thirty (30) days have passed from the mailing by the director of the notices required by this section.
    3. Upon receipt by the director within the thirty (30) days of a protest against the issuance of a permit by a governing official of the city or county to whom the notice of an application for permit has been mailed, the director shall not issue the license until he or she has held a public hearing.
  6. Upon the director's determining that the applicant is qualified hereunder and that the application is in the public interest, a permit may be issued as authorized in this section.

History. Acts 1969, No. 132, § 10; 1975 (Extended Sess., 1976), No. 1016, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 48-1410; reen. Acts 1987, No. 949, § 1; 1989, No. 297, § 1; 1997, No. 1010, § 3; 1997, No. 1060, § 3; 1999, No. 1063, § 3; 2007, No. 735, § 3; 2009, No. 294, § 22; 2009, No. 763, § 5; 2017, No. 1112, § 1.

Amendments. The 2007 amendment deleted “and regulations” following “rules” in (a); substituted “four (4)” for “two (2)” in (c)(1); deleted “regulation” following “rule” in (c)(2) and (d)(4)(A); added (d)(4)(B); inserted “the application” preceding “shall” in (e)(1); and made related changes.

The 2009 amendment by No. 294, in (b), substituted “one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500)” for “five hundred dollars ($500)” in (b)(1), and inserted (b)(3).

The 2009 amendment by No. 763 substituted “an area” for “a county” and ”additional application” for “annual permit” in (b)(3).

The 2017 amendment redesignated former (a) as (a)(1); substituted “governing body of the county or municipality in which the private club seeks to be located” for “Director of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Division in accordance with the rules of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board” in (a)(1); added (a)(2); inserted “submitted to the division and” in (b)(1) through (b)(3).

Case Notes

Appeal.

A finding that a private club permit is not in the public interest is not supported by substantial evidence if that finding is based solely on the number, or official position of, the persons who oppose it. Green House, Inc. v. Ark. ABC Div., 29 Ark. App. 229, 780 S.W.2d 347 (1989).

On appeal from circuit court's affirmance of board's denial of permit, appellate court will review the decision of the board, not the decision of the circuit court. Green House, Inc. v. Ark. ABC Div., 29 Ark. App. 229, 780 S.W.2d 347 (1989).

Where the board has merely recited the testimony rather than translating that testimony into findings of fact, an appellate court will be unable to determine the board's view of the facts, or the theory of law on which the denial of permit was based, and will remand the case. Green House, Inc. v. Ark. ABC Div., 29 Ark. App. 229, 780 S.W.2d 347 (1989).

On appeal, the decision of the trial court was reversed and the Board's decision affirmed, where the trial court overturned the Board's decision on grounds not raised in the hearing below, and thereby improperly substituted its decision for that of the agency. Moore v. King, 328 Ark. 639, 945 S.W.2d 358 (1997).

Burden of Proof.

The burden is on the applicant for a permit under this section, to show that he is qualified to hold the permit and that the issuance of the permit is in the public interest, whereupon the board may issue the permit. Ark. ABC Bd. v. King, 275 Ark. 308, 629 S.W.2d 288 (1982).

Denial of Permit.

The board's finding that proposed private club would be a detrimental influence on large numbers of children in the area was neither arbitrary nor capricious and was supported by substantial evidence. Ark. ABC Bd. v. King, 275 Ark. 308, 629 S.W.2d 288 (1982).

Factors Considered.

Factors to be considered by the alcoholic beverage control board before issuing a permit to operate a private club include: (1) the number and types of alcoholic permits in the area; (2) economic impact; (3) traffic hazards; (4) remoteness of the area; (5) degree of law enforcement available; (6) input from law enforcement or other public officials in the area; and (7) comments from area residents in opposition or support of the permit. Moore v. King, 56 Ark. App. 21, 937 S.W.2d 677 (1997).

Grant of Permit.

The board did not err in granting a private club permit. Department of Fin. & Admin. v. Samuhel, 51 Ark. App. 76, 909 S.W.2d 656 (1995).

Permit improperly granted to an applicant lodge where one of its members knowingly provided false information at the hearing and where another of its members had been convicted of illegally selling alcoholic beverages on lodge premises. Moore v. King, 56 Ark. App. 21, 937 S.W.2d 677 (1997).

Mandamus.

Mandamus was not the proper remedy where a petitioner was seeking an order for the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board to rescind and void all permits issued to private clubs pursuant to this subchapter because the constitutionality of this subchapter could be determined in a proceeding for declaratory judgment and because the petitioner was attempting to enforce an alleged duty which was not a plain ministerial duty for which a writ of mandamus could issue. Kemp-Bradford VFW Post 4764 v. Wood, 262 Ark. 168, 554 S.W.2d 344 (1977).

Transfers.

The prohibition of § 3-4-206 would not apply to the transfer of a private club permit for dispensation of alcoholic beverages by the drink or in broken or unsealed containers for consumption on the premises. Jones v. Reed, 267 Ark. 237, 590 S.W.2d 6 (1979).

Cited: Morris v. Torch Club, 278 Ark. 285, 645 S.W.2d 938 (1983); Barnes v. Ark. Dep't of Fin. & Admin., 2010 Ark. App. 436 (2010).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1989–1997 · leading case: Green House, Inc. v. Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control Div., 780 S.W.2d 347 (Ark. Ct. App. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Green House, Inc. v. Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control Div., 780 S.W.2d 347 (Ark. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “are unable to determine from the record whether the Board’s finding was based on the mere opposition of the specified public officials, or was instead based on fact-findings derived from the testimony of those officials, because the Board’s decision does not include “a concise…”
Moore v. King, 937 S.W.2d 677 (Ark. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “Arkansas Code Annotated section 3-4-201 (b) (Repl. 1996) pertains to the restricting of the quantity of permits issued in the state and provides: The Alcoholic Beverage Control Board is empowered to determine whether public convenience and advantage will be promoted by issuing…”
Dep't of Fin. & Admin. v. Samuhel, 909 S.W.2d 656 (Ark. Ct. App. 1995). “§ 3-9-202 (10) (1987), which defines a “private club” as: [A] nonprofit organization organized and existing under the laws of this state, no part of the net revenues of which shall inure directly or indirectly to the benefit of any of its members or any other individual, except…”
Ark. Code Ann. § 3-9-222(f): 2 cases
Moore v. King, 937 S.W.2d 677 (Ark. Ct. App. 1997). “Arkansas Code Annotated section 3-4-201 (b) (Repl. 1996) pertains to the restricting of the quantity of permits issued in the state and provides: The Alcoholic Beverage Control Board is empowered to determine whether public convenience and advantage will be promoted by issuing…”
Dep't of Fin. & Admin. v. Samuhel, 909 S.W.2d 656 (Ark. Ct. App. 1995). “§ 3-9-202 (10) (1987), which defines a “private club” as: [A] nonprofit organization organized and existing under the laws of this state, no part of the net revenues of which shall inure directly or indirectly to the benefit of any of its members or any other individual, except…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.