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.

KERCHNER v. LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD (12/31/71)

decided: December 31, 1971.

KERCHNER, SR.'S ESTATE, ET AL.
v.
LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, in case of Estate of Peter P. Kerchner, Sr., Stella Kerchner, Administratrix, Frank Kerchner and Peter P. Kerchner, Jr. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, No. SA 371 of 1970.

COUNSEL

Louis Kwall, with him Herbert B. Lebovitz and Lebovitz & Lebovitz, for appellants.

Alexander J. Jaffurs, Assistant Attorney General, with him Albert B. Miller, Special Assistant Attorney General, and J. Shane Creamer, Attorney General, for appellee.

Judges Kramer, Manderino and Mencer, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Manderino.

Author: Manderino

[ 4 Pa. Commw. Page 248]

Peter P. Kerchner, Sr., and his two sons, Peter P. Kerchner, Jr., and Frank Kerchner, operated a restaurant with a restaurant-liquor license under the name of Pete's Grille in McKees Rocks, Pennsylvania. The liquor license was issued by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. On August 22, 1969 Peter P. Kerchner, Sr., died. On September 26, 1969 Frank Kerchner, one of the co-licensees, was stopped while driving his automobile in Fayette County, Pennsylvania, by State Police. He had some liquor in his automobile which he purchased in Maryland, which liquor did not have the official seal of the Board.

The Board sent a notice of violation to the licensed premises on October 1, 1969. On November 19, 1969 a citation was sent to the licensed premises addressed to Peter P. Kerchner, Jr., and Frank Kerchner, the surviving partners, to show cause why the liquor license issued for the premises would not be revoked. The surviving co-licensees executed a waiver, admission and authorization, wherein they waived the hearing on the citation, admitted the charges in the citation and authorized the Board to enter a final order.

On April 15, 1970, the Board issued an order imposing a $500 fine upon Peter P. Kerchner, Jr., and Frank Kerchner. An appeal was taken from the order of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, on April 23, 1970. A hearing de novo was held before the court on September 15, 1970, and the court affirmed the order of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. An appeal to this court was taken.

[ 4 Pa. Commw. Page 249]

Two issues are presented. The first is whether the nature of the violation and citation were effective. Appellants contend that failure to give notice to Peter P. Kerchner, Sr., and failure to have his name on the citation renders any action taken by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board improper and illegal. We do not agree. While the appellants may argue that failure to cite and give notice to Peter P. Kerchner, Sr., is a fatal defect, this defect was cured by the hearing de novo in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. The Liquor Code provides: ". . . in the event the person who was fined or whose license was suspended or revoked by the Board shall feel aggrieved by the action of the Board, he shall have the right to appeal to the . . . County Court of Allegheny County in the same manner as herein provided for appeals from refusals to grant licenses." Liquor Code, Act of April 12, 1951, P.L. 90, 47 P.S. Sec. 4-471.

The Code further provides: ". . . any applicant who has appeared before the Board or any agent, thereof, at any hearing . . . may take an appeal limited to the question of such grievance. . . . The Court will hear the application de novo on questions of fact, administrative discretion, and such other matters as are involved. . . ." Liquor Code, Act of April 12, 1951, P.L. 90, 47 P.S. Sec. 4-464.

The appeal from the Board's order to the Court of Common Pleas was filed by the administratrix of the deceased partner as well as the two surviving partners. If there were any defense to the charges in the citation, they could have raised them at that time. However, at the hearing de novo the charges were again admitted. The hearing de novo afforded to the appellants their full constitutional ...


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.