Court Opinion

ID: 9699988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:04:32.289067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:02.227686
License: Public Domain

*531Concurring Opinion by
Ervin, J.:
I concur in the result but I cannot agree with the reasoning upon which thé ihajority opinion reaches its conclusion. In reality the majority opinion permits the court below to substitute its administrative discretion for that of the board without finding facts differently from those found by the board. This we have held may not be done. See Azarewicz Liquor License Case, 163 Pa. Superior Ct. 459, 461, 62 A. 2d 78. I, of course, realize.that our Court has ruled that the lower court has no administrative discretion. See 425-429 Inc. Liquor License Case, 179 Pa. Superior Ct. 235, 116 A. 2d 79 (Allocatur refused 179 Pa. Superior Ct. xxvi). The changed language used by thé legislature in its amendments of 1949 and 1951 has not been considered by either our Court or the Supreme Court. If either Court would ever get around to considering this language, I do not understand how they could arrive at a conclusion denying administrative discretion to the lower court. That language is: “The court shall hear the application de novo on questions of fact, administrative discretion and such other matters as are involved. . . .” For a full discussion of this subject see my dissenting opinion in 425-429, Inc. Liquor License Case, supra, at page 243. ! would like to see our Court go on record and say in clear language that the court below does now have administrative discretion to grant or refuse a transfer of a license within 300 feet of a church, etc., without the necessity of finding any facts differently from those found, by the board. This would place in the hands of the lower court the power to strike down mistakes of the board, which keep coming before us'with some degree of regularity, and this I believe would be in accord with the intention of the legislature as expressed in the 1949 and 1951 amendments.
Watkins, J., joins in this concurring opinion.