Maritime Mgt. v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd.

9 Citing cases

  1. Mercury Trucking, Inc. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n

    55 A.3d 1056 (Pa. 2012)   Cited 49 times

    In anticipation of Mercury's argument, the Commission offers that Section 510(d) of the Code was reenacted following the 1978 adoption of the AAL, but notes that the General Assembly did not intend to supersede the uniform procedure generally applicable to the Commission as a Commonwealth agency. Commission's Brief at 12 (citing Mar. Mgmt., Inc. v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd., 531 Pa. 95, 611 A.2d 202 (1992)). According to the Commission, any exemption from the AAL must be express and the Code does not contain any explicit provision to that effect.

  2. Giant Food Stores, LLC v. Penn Twp.

    167 A.3d 252 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2017)   Cited 3 times
    In Giant Food, we essentially concluded the legislature could not have intended to allow a municipality to abuse its discretion with impunity.

    3) (bold and italic emphasis added).Although Giant agrees that the Liquor Code expressly prohibits an appeal from the Township's denial of its intermunicipal liquor license transfer application, it contends that it may appeal from that denial under the Local Agency Law, in accordance with our Supreme Court's decision in Maritime Management, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board , 531 Pa. 95, 611 A.2d 202 (1992). Section 751 of the Local Agency Law provides:

  3. Irem Temple Aaonms v. Pa. Liquor Contorl Bd.

    87 A.3d 983 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2014)   Cited 2 times

    Although Irem Temple lacked standing under the Liquor Code, it nonetheless has a right to appeal the Board's order directly to this Court pursuant to Section 702 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 702, which provides that “[a]ny person aggrieved by an adjudication of a Commonwealth agency who has a direct interest in such adjudication shall have the right to appeal therefrom to the court vested with jurisdiction of such appeals by or pursuant to Title 42 (relating to judiciary and judicial procedure).” Maritime Mgmt. Inc. v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd., 531 Pa. 95, 99, 611 A.2d 202, 204 (1992); Application of El Rancho Grande, Inc., 496 Pa. 496, 507–8, 437 A.2d 1150, 1155–56 (1981); W. Reading Tavern, 710 A.2d at 650–51. A right to appeal under the Administrative Agency Law is in addition to that provided by the Liquor Code. Maritime Mgmt., 531 Pa. at 99, 611 A.2d at 204;Application of Family Style Rest., Inc., 503 Pa. 109, 113, 468 A.2d 1088, 1090 (1983).

  4. Aaonms v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd.

    No. 382 C.D. 2013 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Mar. 14, 2014)

    Although Irem Temple lacked standing under the Liquor Code, it nonetheless has a right to appeal the Board's order directly to this Court pursuant to Section 702 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. § 702, which provides that "[a]ny person aggrieved by an adjudication of a Commonwealth agency who has a direct interest in such adjudication shall have the right to appeal therefrom to the court vested with jurisdiction of such appeals by or pursuant to Title 42 (relating to judiciary and judicial procedure)."Maritime Mgmt. Inc. v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd., 531 Pa. 95, 99, 611 A.2d 202, 204 (1992); Application of El Rancho Grande, Inc., 496 Pa. 496, 507-8, 437 A.2d 1150, 1155-56 (1981); W. Reading Tavern, 710 A.2d at 650-51. A right to appeal under the Administrative Agency Law is in addition to that provided by the Liquor Code. Maritime Mgmt., 531 Pa. at 99, 611 A.2d at 204; Application of Family Style Rest., Inc., 503 Pa. 109, 113, 468 A.2d 1088, 1090 (1983).

  5. West Reading Tavern v. Liquor Control

    710 A.2d 648 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1998)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that an applicant whose prior application has been denied may file a new application for the Board's consideration

    Therefore, Tavern, a holder of a restaurant liquor license, does not have standing to appeal the Board's decision to grant Bistro a license to the trial court under the Liquor Code. However, one, who protested the application before the Board but lacks standing to appeal to the trial court under the Liquor Code, may still appeal directly to this Court pursuant to Section 702 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. § 702, if he or she is aggrieved by and have direct interest in the Board's decision. Maritime Management, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 531 Pa. 95, 611 A.2d 202 (1992); Application of El Rancho Grande, Inc., 496 Pa. 496, 437 A.2d 1150 (1981); Tacony Civic Ass'n v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 668 A.2d 584 (Pa.Commw. 1995), appeal denied sub nom. Tacony Civic Ass'n v. Foodarama, Inc., 545 Pa. 666, 681 A.2d 180 (1996). In this matter, the trial court properly transferred Tavern's appeal to this Court.

  6. Tacony Civic Ass'n v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board

    668 A.2d 584 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1995)   Cited 19 times
    Holding that protestant's expressions of general concern for the welfare of the community were insufficient to demonstrate the likelihood of immediate harm necessary to confer standing

    2 P. S. § 702. See Maritime Management, Inc. v. Pennsylvania liquor Control Board, 531 Pa. 95, 611 A.2d 202 (1992). In fact, appeals taken directly to the Commonwealth Court under section 702 may only proceed if they are prohibited from being taken "initially to the courts of common pleas under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 933. . . ."

  7. Teazers v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd.

    661 A.2d 455 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1995)   Cited 2 times

    The PLCB determined, however, that Licensee's amusement permit should not be renewed. Licensee appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, which transferred the case to this Court stating that because the Liquor Code did not expressly provide a statutory appeal for the refusal to renew an amusement permit, jurisdiction lies in the Commonwealth Court under the Administrative Agency Law, citing Maritime Management, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 531 Pa. 95, 611 A.2d 202 (1992). The trial court noted, however, that Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Sherman, 129 Pa. Commw. 523, 566 A.2d 362 (1989), appeal denied, 526 Pa. 643, 584 A.2d 324 (1990), contained a contrary proposition and would permit the court of common pleas to hear the appeal. The merits of Licensee's appeal cannot be addressed because of this Court's disposition of the jurisdictional question involved.

  8. Sidlow v. Township of Nether Providence

    621 A.2d 1105 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1993)   Cited 6 times

    2 Pa. C.S. § 751 provides for judicial review, even if the statute conferring the right expressly states that there should be no review or that the order of the local agency should be final and conclusive. See Maritime Management, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 531 Pa. 95, 611 A.2d 202 (1992). By enacting the Local Agency Law, the General Assembly provided for a "default" method of providing due process when the system and the forum were not set out in specific legislation.

  9. Maritime Management v. Liquor Control Board

    621 A.2d 1097 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1993)   Cited 1 times

    Maritime sought discretionary review from the Supreme Court which was granted. That court reversed our order quashing the appeal, explaining that, while there was no appeal pursuant to the Liquor Code, Maritime had a right of appeal pursuant to Sections 701 and 702 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §§ 701, 702; Maritime Management, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 531 Pa. 95, 611 A.2d 202 (1992). The Supreme Court remanded the matter to us to consider the merits of Maritime's appeal.