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.

COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA v. SWIFTWATER INN (08/16/79)

decided: August 16, 1979.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, APPELLANT
v.
SWIFTWATER INN, INC., APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County in case of Swiftwater Inn, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, Misc. Docket, Vol. 13, Page 965.

COUNSEL

David Shotel, Assistant Attorney General, with him Kenneth W. Makowski, Acting Chief Counsel, for appellant.

George Royle, IV, with him George W. Westervelt, Jr., and Royle and Westervelt, for appellee.

Judges Blatt, DiSalle and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt. Judge MacPhail dissents.

Author: Blatt

[ 45 Pa. Commw. Page 142]

This is an appeal from an order by the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County which reversed the denial by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (LCB) of the application by the Swiftwater Inn, Inc.

[ 45 Pa. Commw. Page 143]

(Swiftwater) for an extension of its hotel liquor license.

Swiftwater presently holds a hotel liquor license and occupies one building containing a restaurant and sleeping rooms. It now seeks to extend its license to include another building located approximately 900 feet away, across a covered bridge. It plans to use this second building for the entertainment of hotel guests, but the building will not contain any sleeping accommodations. The LCB denied the application on the basis that the proposed building was not adjacent to or contiguous with the presently licensed premises. This order, however, was reversed by the court of common pleas and the LCB now appeals here.

The LCB argues that, inasmuch as Swiftwater's second building did not contain sleeping accommodations, it did not in itself qualify as a hotel and thus could not be the subject premises for the extension of a hotel liquor license. It argues, too, because this building was not adjacent to or contiguous with the presently licensed premises, it could not qualify Swiftwater for an extension of its present license.

The applicable LCB Regulations are:

ยง 7.21 Inclusion of additional premises.

(a) No licensee may conduct any business permitted by his license on any other premises, or any portion of the same premises other than that for which the license was issued, without the approval of the Board for the inclusion of such additional premises in the license, except that the Board ...


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.