Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

KREISER LIQUOR LICENSE CASE. (11/14/58)

November 14, 1958

KREISER LIQUOR LICENSE CASE.


Appeal, No. 372, Oct. T., 1958, from order of Court of Quarter Sessions of Carbon County, Jan. T., 1958, No. 42, in re application of Gertrude M. Kreiser. Order reversed.

COUNSEL

Robert H. Jordan, Special Assistant Attorney General, with him Horace A. Segelbaum, Assistant Attorney General, and Thomas D. McBride, Attorney General, for appellant.

W. Hamlin Neely, with him Jacob Philip, for appellee.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, and Watkins, JJ. (ervin, J., absent).

Author: Wright

[ 188 Pa. Super. Page 207]

OPINION BY WRIGHT, J.

On July 24, 1957, Gertrude M. Kreiser filed with the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board an application for a restaurant liquor license at premises in Franklin Township, Carbon County, upon the theory that the

[ 188 Pa. Super. Page 208]

    municipality in question is located within a resort area. The Board refused the application, whereupon Mrs. Kreiser appealed to the Court of Quarter Sessions of Carbon County. Said tribunal by opinion and order dated June 9, 1958, directed that the license be granted. The Board has appealed.

The reasons assigned by the Board for refusing the application are as follows: "1. As provided by the law, Franklin Township, Carbon County, has a quota of three licenses for the retail sale of liquor and malt beverages, and there are now five such licenses in effect of the type counted against the quota. Accordingly, the legal quota for the township is now exceeded. 2. The establishment proposed to be licensed under this application is not in a resort area, as claimed by the applicant. 3. There is no evidence of any necessity for an additional restaurant liquor license in the township".

The court below, after making thirty-five findings of fact, came to the following conclusions: "1. The Appellant's premises are located within a resort area. 2. There is a reasonable necessity for the issuance of a Restaurant Liquor License to the Appellant ... 3. Under all the conditions and, particularly, in view of the finding that the area is in fact a resort area, the Court concludes that the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board erred in refusing to issue to Appellant A Restaurant Liquor License".

This appeal is governed by our opinion in Bierman Liquor License Case, 188 Pa. Superior Ct. 200, 145 A.2d 876, the pertinent portions of which will not be repeated but are incorporated herein by reference. Of particular significance are the following findings of fact made by the court below: "31. The proposed licensed ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.