# Lancaster Laboratories, Inc. v. Commonwealth

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · November 10, 1993 · 534 Pa. 392

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6264912

## Case

- **Full name:** LANCASTER LABORATORIES, INC. v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, BOARD OF FINANCE AND REVENUE
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 10, 1993
- **Citations:** 534 Pa. 392; 633 A.2d 588; 1993 Pa. LEXIS 272
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Montemuro
- **Judges:** Cappy, Files, Flaherty, Larsen, Montemuro, Nix, Papadakos, Zappala
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6264912

## Opinion text

MONTEMURO, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent from the conclusion that Lancaster’s label-related testing does not qualify for the manufacturing exclusion.
It is reasoned that because such research as Lancaster performs is aimed at providing the client with a competitive advantage, it can be classified as unexcludable “market research or research having as its objective the improvement of administrative efficiency.” 72 P.S. § 7201(5) I can think of no situation in which research performed on a product in this *393 context is not directed at gaining some competitive advantage for its manufacturer, either by improving the product’s salability, reducing the producer’s liability, or a combination of both. In no event is such research undertaken for wholly disinterested non-commercial motives. That being so, the research exemption is effectively rendered void, an illogicality which our scheme of statutory construction does not permit. Instead, it would seem to me that where, as here, the improvement of the product is an objective, the exemption should apply; while the producer’s self-interest and competitive advantage are clearly implicated, so are the interests of the purchasing public.
Accordingly, I would reverse the decision of the Commonwealth Court on this issue.
NIX, C.J., joins in the dissenting statement.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6264912. Public record. Not legal advice.