2015 ORS 471.313¹
Grounds for refusing to issue license

The Oregon Liquor Control Commission may refuse to license any applicant under the provisions of this chapter if the commission has reasonable ground to believe any of the following to be true:

(1) That there are sufficient licensed premises in the locality set out in the application, or that the granting of a license in the locality set out in the application is not demanded by public interest or convenience. In determining whether there are sufficient licensed premises in the locality, the commission shall consider seasonal fluctuations in the population of the locality and shall ensure that there are adequate licensed premises to serve the needs of the locality during the peak seasons.

(2) That the applicant has not furnished an acceptable bond as required by ORS 471.311 (Application for license) or is not maintaining the insurance or bond required by ORS 471.168 (Certain licensees required to maintain liquor liability insurance or bond).

(3) That, except as allowed by ORS 471.392 (Definitions for ORS 471.392 to 471.400) to 471.400 (Exceptions to prohibition of financial assistance), any applicant to sell at retail for consumption on the premises has been financed or furnished with money or property by, or has any connection with, or is a manufacturer of, or wholesale dealer in, alcoholic liquor.

(4) That the applicant:

(a) Is in the habit of using alcoholic beverages, habit-forming drugs or controlled substances to excess.

(b) Has made false statements to the commission.

(c) Is incompetent or physically unable to carry on the management of the establishment proposed to be licensed.

(d) Has been convicted of violating a general or local law of this state or another state, or of violating a federal law, if the conviction is substantially related to the fitness and ability of the applicant to lawfully carry out activities under the license.

(e) Has maintained an insanitary establishment.

(f) Is not of good repute and moral character.

(g) Did not have a good record of compliance with the alcoholic liquor laws of this state and the rules of the commission when previously licensed.

(h) Is not the legitimate owner of the business proposed to be licensed, or other persons have ownership interests in the business which have not been disclosed.

(i) Is not possessed of or has not demonstrated financial responsibility sufficient to adequately meet the requirements of the business proposed to be licensed.

(j) Is unable to read or write the English language or to understand the laws of Oregon relating to alcoholic liquor or the rules of the commission.

(5) That there is a history of serious and persistent problems involving disturbances, lewd or unlawful activities or noise either in the premises proposed to be licensed or involving patrons of the establishment in the immediate vicinity of the premises if the activities in the immediate vicinity of the premises are related to the sale or service of alcohol under the exercise of the license privilege. Behavior which is grounds for refusal of a license under this section, where so related to the sale or service of alcohol, includes, but is not limited to obtrusive or excessive noise, music or sound vibrations; public drunkenness; fights; altercations; harassment; unlawful drug sales; alcohol or related litter; trespassing on private property; and public urination. Histories from premises currently or previously operated by the applicant may be considered when reasonable inference may be made that similar activities will occur as to the premises proposed to be licensed. The applicant may overcome the history by showing that the problems are not serious or persistent or that the applicant demonstrates a willingness and ability to control adequately the premises proposed to be licensed and patrons’ behavior in the immediate vicinity of the premises which is related to the licensee’s sale or service of alcohol under the licensee’s exercise of the license privilege. [Formerly 471.295; 2001 c.785 §1; 2011 c.165 §1; 2013 c.149 §1]

(formerly 471.295)

Notes of Decisions

Under Former Similar Statute (Ors 472.160)

The com­mis­sion need not issue all of its statutory quota of licenses to all qualified applicants on a first-come, first-served basis, and could properly consider the "public interest or convenience" in terms of the future, as well as the present. Battle Creek Golf Course v. Ore. Liquor Control Comm., 21 Or App 179, 534 P2d 204 (1975)

The order refusing an applicant must clearly and precisely state what the com­mis­sion found to be the facts and why those facts lead it to the decision it makes. Graham v. Ore. Liquor Control Comm., (1975) 20 Or App 97, 530 P2d 858; Battle Creek Golf Course v. Ore. Liquor Control Comm., 21 Or App 179, 534 P2d 204 (1975)

Evidence, inter alia, that applicant stated he would go "under the table" to buy a license demonstrated lack of honesty in dealings with public bodies and was sufficient to show that applicant was not of good moral character. Schmitz v. OLCC, 30 Or App 563, 567 P2d 591 (1977)

Public interest does not include preventing passerby exposure to consump­tion of alcoholic beverages. Red Robin Enterprises v. OLCC, 55 Or App 720, 639 P2d 710 (1982)

In General

For the purposes of this sec­tion, con­vic­­tion occurs when a party has had judg­ment entered and the con­vic­­tion will stand until and unless reversed on ap­peal. Sportservice Corp. v. Ore. Liquor Control Comm., 15 Or App 226, 515 P2d 731 (1973), Sup Ct review denied

The language "has reasonable ground to believe" does not require finality of a con­vic­­tion by exhaus­tion of ap­peal. Sportservice Corp. v. Ore. Liquor Control Comm., 15 Or App 226, 515 P2d 731 (1973), Sup Ct review denied

Provisions allowing refusal of license if sufficient licensed premises are in locality or if license is not demanded by public convenience are not enforceable in absence of agency rule providing statutory terms with greater specificity. Sun Ray Drive-in Dairy, Inc. v. Ore. Liquor Control Comm., 16 Or App 63, 517 P2d 289 (1973)

The negative context of this sec­tion implies that an applicant is entitled to a license so long as certain circumstances set out in the statute or imple­mental regula­tions are not shown to be true. Sun Ray Drive-in Dairy, Inc. v. Ore. Liquor Control Comm., 16 Or App 63, 517 P2d 289 (1973)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

In General

Sanita­tion inspec­tions by Oregon Liquor Control Commission and Health Division, (1974) Vol 37, p 123

Law Review Cita­tions

In General

53 OLR 465 (1974)

Chapter 471

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Employ­ment by OLCC of staff member as "hearings advocate" at certain OLCC contested case hearings, (1983) Vol 44, p 1

Law Review Cita­tions

16 WLR 479 (1979)


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 471—Alcoholic Liquors Generally, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors471.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 471, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano471.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.