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.

146 v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (06/24/87)

decided: June 24, 1987.

146, INC., APPELLANT
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, APPELLEE. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, APPELLANT V. CHARLES E. WIEGAND, JR., APPELLEE



Appeals from the Orders of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. 146, Inc., No. S.A. 73 of 1986, and in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Charles E. Wiegand, Jr., t/d/b/a Wiegand's Cafe, No. S.A. 1103 of 1986.

COUNSEL

David R. Cashman, Cashman & Cipriani, for appellant, 146, Inc. and Charles E. Wiegand, Jr., appellee.

Kenneth B. Skelly, Chief Counsel, with him, Sharon E. Holley, Assistant Counsel and Felix Thau, Deputy Chief Counsel, for appellant/appellee, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board.

Judges Craig and Barry, and Senior Judge Narick, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.

Author: Craig

[ 107 Pa. Commw. Page 80]

Before this court are the appeals of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board and 146, Inc. from two separate orders of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. The trial court reversed a Liquor Control Board order imposing a $500 fine on licensee Charles E. Wiegand, and affirmed a Liquor Control Board order imposing a $750 fine on licensee 146, Inc. Because those cases relate to similar fact situations involving

[ 107 Pa. Commw. Page 81]

    sales to the same minor, allegedly in violation of the sales-to-minors prohibition in the Pennsylvania Liquor Code,*fn1 those cases have been consolidated on appeal here.

The question is whether there were, as a matter of law, sales to a minor within the meaning of the Liquor Code.

The board had determined that licensee Wiegand furnished intoxicating liquor to minor Kimberly Knapp on July 19, 1984. After a non-jury de novo trial, the trial judge also determined that licensee Wiegand had served alcoholic beverage to that minor on July 19, 1984. However, the trial judge determined that the minor "had deliberately planned and executed a deception" against which the licensee could not protect himself. Accordingly, the trial judge reasoned that, because licensee Wiegand "did not permit a person known to be a minor to frequent the premises on July 19, 1984" the licensee had not violated the Liquor Code.

With respect to the alleged violations of licensee 146, Inc., the trial judge determined that substantial evidence supported the board's determination that licensee 146, Inc. had served intoxicating beverages to the same minor, Kimberly Knapp, in violation of the Liquor Code.

This court's scope of review is limited to a determination of whether the record supports the board's action and whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law. In Re: Peter's Pub, Inc., 94 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 282, 503 A.2d 499 (1986).

There are two forms of identification acceptable as proper proof of age under the Liquor Code -- a photo driver's license or a ...


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.