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. GARY L. & VICKY L. POLLOCK ET AL. (11/21/84)

decided: November 21, 1984.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, APPELLANT
v.
GARY L. & VICKY L. POLLOCK ET AL., APPELLEES. GARY L. & VICKY L. POLLOCK ET AL., APPELLANTS V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, APPELLEE



Appeals from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County in cases of In the Matter of Gary L. & Vicky L. Pollock, Thomas C. & Josephine J. Pollock, No. 1054 of 1983 and in case of In the Matter of Thomas C. & Josephine J. Pollock, Gary L. & Vicky L. Pollock, and Eugene & Natalie R. Bryant, No. 1055 of 1983.

COUNSEL

Eileen S. Maunus, Assistant Counsel, with her, Gary F. DiVito, Chief Counsel, for appellant/appellee, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board.

Lester H. Zimmerman, Jr., Barron & Zimmerman, for appellee/appellant, Gary L. & Vicky L. Pollock, et al.

Judges Williams, Jr., Craig and Doyle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Doyle.

Author: Doyle

[ 86 Pa. Commw. Page 169]

Before us are the cross-appeals of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (Board) and two liquor licensees from a decision of the Mifflin County Court of Common Pleas which modified the Board's revocation of the two liquor licenses.

The licenses in question are held by two partnerships. One partnership owns and operates the Bel-Vue Inn, the other owns and operates the Windcrest Saloon, both in Brown Township Mifflin County.*fn1 On December 1, 1982, Thomas Pollock, a partner in both partnerships, pled guilty to federal drug charges*fn2

[ 86 Pa. Commw. Page 170]

    and was sentenced to pay a fine of $3,500.00 and placed on three year's probation. On the basis of this guilty plea, the Board revoked the licenses held by both partnerships pursuant to Section 471 of the Liquor Code, Act of April 12, 1951, P.L. 90, as amended, 47 P.S. ยง 4-471. The licensees appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, and, after a hearing de novo, the Court modified the Board's revocation by revoking the licenses with respect to Thomas Pollock alone, but restoring the licenses with respect to all other partners.

In its appeal to this Court, the Board contends that the trial court erred in revoking the liquor licenses with respect to only one co-licensee, Thomas Pollock, arguing that the partnerships should be held liable for the wrongful acts of one of their partners.*fn3

On this issue, we note that the Board's authority to revoke liquor licenses is found in Section 471 of the Liquor Code which states, in pertinent part:

Upon learning of any violation of this act or any law of this Commonwealth relating to liquor, alcohol or malt or brewed beverages, or of any regulations of the board adopted pursuant to such laws, . . . or upon any other sufficient cause shown, the board may . . . cite such licensee to appear before it or its ...


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.