Whether the Liquor Board made findings of fact sufficient to permit meaningful judicial review.
Holding
Yes. Although informal, the Board's findings adequately identified the factual basis for each violation.
Reasoning
Administrative review is not a new trial. A reviewing court applies the substantial-evidence test and may not supply its own factual findings or uphold an agency decision on grounds the agency itself did not use. Although the Liquor Board was not expressly required to issue formal findings and conclusions, it had to make at least informal findings sufficient for meaningful review.
The hearing record showed that the two commissioners who voted guilty credited Detective Jackson's account. Commissioner Jones expressly stated that he believed the detective and that the incident occurred; Chairman Ward's ruling likewise necessarily rested on the detective's uncontradicted testimony. Kougl did not dispute the employee's exposure or solicitation, although he denied that a VIP room existed.
The Board's post-hearing summary expressly connected each charge to the operative facts: the dancer's solicitation of the undercover officer for sex and her exposure of herself to him. Because those stated facts tracked the detective's testimony and identified the conduct supporting each rule violation, they gave the courts an adequate basis for review.】【”】【},{