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. ROMET CORPORATION (06/16/86)

decided: June 16, 1986.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, APPELLANT
v.
ROMET CORPORATION, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County in the case of Re: Appeal of Romet Corp., t/a Pizza Hut, No. 161 Miscellaneous Docket, 1984.

COUNSEL

Faith S. Diehl, Assistant Counsel, with her, Gary F. Di Vito, Chief Counsel, for appellant.

David M. Kozloff, Kozloff, Diener, Payne & Fegley, for appellee.

Judges Craig and Doyle, and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.

Author: Craig

[ 98 Pa. Commw. Page 216]

The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County which reversed the board's denial of an application from Romet Corporation, trading as Pizza Hut, for a resort area liquor license.

Pizza Hut applied to the board under the "resort area" provision in section 416(b) of the Liquor Code*fn1 for a new retail dispenser eating place license and provisional Sunday sales permit for its premises located in Caernarvon Township, Berks County. After conducting a hearing on the matter, the board denied Pizza Hut's application. On appeal, the court of common pleas took additional evidence, reversed the board and granted Pizza Hut a resort area license.

Our scope of review is limited to whether the trial court committed an error of law or abused its discretion. Park v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 44 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 87, 403 A.2d 628 (1979). Here the board contends that the trial court (1) erred as a matter of law in allowing the license because the building entrance is within 300 feet of the entrance to Interstate 176, a limited access interstate highway; and (2) abused its discretion by concluding that the licensed premises is within a resort area and that a need for the license exists within the area.

Because we agree that the trial court erred by licensing the premises despite the nearness of its building

[ 98 Pa. Commw. Page 217]

    entrance to an interstate limited access highway, we must reverse.

Section 475(a) of the Liquor Code, 47 P.S. ยง 4-475(a), reads as follows:

(a) No license for the sale of liquor or malt or brewed beverages in any quantity shall be granted to the proprietor, lessee, keeper or manager of an establishment the building entrance to which is located within three hundred feet of ...


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.