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.

ULANA LTD. v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (12/06/84)

decided: December 6, 1984.

ULANA LTD., APPELLANT
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in case of Ulana, Ltd. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, No. P.L.C.B. No. 8211-2565.

COUNSEL

Harry A. Kalish, with him, John L. Heaton, Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish & Kauffman, for appellant.

Patrick M. McHugh, Deputy Chief Counsel, with him, Gary F. Di Vito, Chief Counsel, for appellee.

Cecelia F. Wambold, Duane, Morris & Heckscher, for protestants.

Judges Craig, Doyle and Senior Judge Blatt. Judges Craig, MacPhail and Doyle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail. Judge Colins did not participate in the decision in this case.

Author: Macphail

[ 86 Pa. Commw. Page 346]

Ulana, Ltd. (Ulana) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County which denied an appeal from an order of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (Board) refusing Ulana's application for the extension of its restaurant liquor license.

Ulana presently holds a restaurant liquor license issued for the premises located at 203-205 Bainbridge Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Ulana purchased an adjoining building at 624-626 South Second Street

[ 86 Pa. Commw. Page 347]

    and sought to extend its current license to include the newly purchased premises. Following two hearings,*fn1 the Board denied the extension application based on two findings of fact: 1) that other licensed premises were within 200 feet of the proposed licensed site and 2) that approval of the application would adversely affect the neighborhood within a 500 foot radius.

Ulana appealed the Board's decision to the court of common pleas. All of the interested parties stipulated that the record made before the hearing examiner with respect to the 200*fn2 and 500*fn3 foot rule would constitute the record before the court.*fn4 The trial court denied the appeal, and the present appeal followed.

Ulana presents three issues for our determination: 1) whether the Board erred as a matter of law by basing its decision on the 200 foot rule and the 500 foot rule; 2) whether the Board's review of the extension application violated Ulana's right of due process; and 3) whether the Board acted ...


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.