Returning Subscriber?
Not a Subscriber to Litigation Pathfinder?
Get the full text of this legal issue, including links to cited primary law, along with unlimited access 1,000’s of other legal issues…and more!
Issue: According to state or municipal law in Minnesota (in general) and Minneapolis (in particular), can the existence of an unsatisfied judgment result in the suspension/nonrenewal of an establishment’s liquor license?
| Area of Law: | Administrative Law, Administrative Law & Regulation (Federal and State), Municipal, County and Local Law |
| Keywords: | Liquor licenses; Suspension/nonrenewal; Opportunity for a hearing |
| Jurisdiction: | Minnesota |
| Cited Cases: | 763 N.W.2d 359 |
| Cited Statutes: | Minn. Stat. ch. 340A, § 340A.402, § 340A.402(3), § 340A.415, § 340A.415(5); Minn. Admin. R. ch. 7515, R. 7515.0410(B); Mpls. Code Ords. § 362.340; Minneapolis Code § 259.250, § 259.250(5) |
| Date: | 04/01/2011 |
The case law makes clear that when the burden of proof shifts to a fiduciary or other person in a position of superior knowledge or expertise to prove the absence of fraud or other misconduct, the fiduciary’s burden of proof under New York law is by clear and convincing evidence. In re Hunter, 190 Misc. 2d 593, 599, 739 N.Y.S.2d 916, 21 (Surr. Ct. 2002); Allen v. Westpoint-Pepperell, Inc., 11 F. Supp. 2d 277, 284 (S.D.N.Y. 1997); see In re Gordon, 45 N.Y.2d 692, 697-98, 385 N.E.2d 285, 288, 412 N.Y.S.2d 593, 596 (1978) (stating that burden is with “clear and satisfactory evidence”); Mazza v. Fleet Bank, 16 A.D.3d 761, 762, 790 N.Y.S.2d 730, 731 (3d Dep’t 2005) (stating rule that the burden shifts to the fiduciary to demonstrate “with clear proof that there was no fraud, deception or undue influence”); Oakes v. Muka, 69 A.D.3d 1139, 1141, 893 N.Y.S.2d 677, 679 (3d Dep’t) (same), appeal dism’d 15 N.Y.3d 867, 936 N.E.2d 915, 910 N.Y.S.2d 33, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 85275 reconsideration denied 16 N.Y.3d 733, 942 N.E.2d 307, 917 N.Y.S.2d 97 (Mem), 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 60831.
[…]