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.

APPEAL R.G.R. ENTERPRISES (06/21/77)

decided: June 21, 1977.

IN RE: APPEAL OF R.G.R. ENTERPRISES, INC., T/A GRAEME PARK INN FROM ORDER OF PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, APPELLANT


Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County in case of In Re: Appeal of R.G.R. Enterprises, Inc., t/a Graeme Park Inn from the Order of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, No. 29 Misc. January 1976.

COUNSEL

J. Leonard Langan, Assistant Attorney General, with him Harry Bowytz, Chief Counsel, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellant.

Michael J. Sheridan, for appellee.

Judges Crumlish, Jr., Mencer and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer.

Author: Mencer

[ 30 Pa. Commw. Page 608]

In this appeal, we are once again faced with the question of the lower court's authority to modify a penalty imposed by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (Board). After a de novo hearing, the Court

[ 30 Pa. Commw. Page 609]

    of Common Pleas of Montgomery County reduced the 30-day suspension which had been imposed by the Board to 10 days. Since the lower court modified the penalty without making significant and material changes in the facts as found by the Board, we reverse.

The Board found that an employee of R.G.R. Enterprises, Inc. (R.G.R.) served liquor or brewed beverages to a minor on November 3, 1974. The 30-day suspension was imposed after the Board found that R.G.R. had two prior citations for violation of the Liquor Code*fn1 (Code) within the last four years. R.G.R. appealed to the lower court where a hearing de novo was held pursuant to Section 464 of the Code, 47 P.S. ยง 4-464. The lower court adopted the Board's findings concerning the November incident and the prior citations and made the following additional findings:

1. The licensee has always had a policy of firing any bartender found guilty of violation of the Liquor Code.

2. The licensee fired the previous bartender on the second citation which was also for a sale to a minor.

3. The licensee fired the barmaid for the incident of November 3, 1974.

4. The licensee had no personal knowledge of the sales to minors until ...


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.