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.

MATTER REVOCATION HOTEL LIQUOR LICENSE NO. H-322 (06/23/78)

decided: June 23, 1978.

IN THE MATTER OF REVOCATION OF HOTEL LIQUOR LICENSE NO. H-322, AMUSEMENT PERMIT NO. AP-17442 AND SUNDAY SALES PERMIT NO. SS-3743, ISSUED TO RAYMOND EARL MOONEY, NEW NATIONAL HOTEL, 118 SOUTH GILPIN STREET, PUNXSUTAWNEY, PENNSYLVANIA 15767. RAYMOND EARL MOONEY, TRADING AS NEW NATIONAL HOTEL, APPELLANT


Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County in case of In the Matter of Revocation of Hotel Liquor License No. H-322, Amusement Permit No. AP-17442 and Sunday Sales Permit No. SS-3743, issued to Raymond Earl Mooney, New National Hotel, 118 South Gilpin Street, Punxsutawney, Pa. 15767, No. 226-1976 M.D.

COUNSEL

David L. Young, with him R. Edward Ferraro, for appellant.

James P. Deeley, with him J. Leonard Langan, Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth W. Makowski, Acting Chief Counsel, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.

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

Author: Disalle

[ 36 Pa. Commw. Page 289]

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County, dated June 27, 1977, sustaining the order of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (Board) which revoked the Hotel Liquor License issued to Raymond E. Mooney (Mooney). The lower court also vacated that part of the Board's order which forfeited the bond which Mooney had filed

[ 36 Pa. Commw. Page 290]

    with his license applications in 1974 and 1975. This part of the court's order is not in dispute.

The four findings of fact made by the lower court*fn1 which we have been asked to review are: (1) that the licensed establishment was maintained in an unsanitary condition; (2) that other persons were permitted to operate other businesses on the licensed premises; (3) that the licensed establishment was not a bona fide hotel in that there was no public dining room or rooms accommodating at least thirty persons at one time on the licensed premises; and, (4) that the licensed establishment was not a bona fide hotel in that there was no kitchen apart from the public dining room or rooms.

Our scope of review in liquor license revocation cases is limited to a determination of whether the court below committed an error of law or abused its discretion. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Latrobe Armed Services Association, 16 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 199, 329 A.2d 549 (1974).

Section 102 of the Liquor Code, Act of April 12, 1951, P.L. 90, as amended, 47 P.S. ยง 1-102 defines hotel as:

'Hotel' shall mean any reputable place operated by responsible persons of good reputation where the public may, for a consideration, obtain sleeping accommodations and meals and which, in a city, has at least ten, and in any other place at least six, permanent bedrooms for the use of guests, a public dining room or rooms ...


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.