Opinion

Obradovich Liquor License Case

  • 180 Pa. Super. 383
  • 119 A.2d 839
  • 1956 Pa. Super. LEXIS 580
Court
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Jan 17, 1956
Status
Published
Author
Ross
On the bench
Rhodes, Hirt, Ross, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin
Cited by
4 cases

The opinion

Dissenting Opinion by

Ross, J.:

In my opinion, the order in this case should be reversed on the ground that the Board abused its discretion in refusing the transfer.

The sole reason advanced for refusing the transfer was that the establishment proposed to be licensed is situated in a “residential” area. That is just contrary *387 to fact. The municipal authorities by legislative enactment, a zoning ordinance, designated this area as commercial. Of course as stated in the majority opinion, a municipality may not in the guise of a zoning ordinance regulate the business of dispensing liquor, but the converse should also be true: the Liquor Control Board — or a court acting under the liquor laws — cannot rezone a municipality and then use that attempted rezoning as the basis for refusing or granting the issuance of a license or a transfer thereof.

I would reverse the order of the court below and remit the record to the Liquor Control Board with direction to approve the transfer of the license in question.

Gunther, J. joins in this dissent.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.