Street Road Bar & Grille, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 583 Pa. 72

Summary

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a liquor license applicant bears the burden of proving good repute under Section 404 of the Pennsylvania Liquor Code. The Court further held that the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board may consider an applicant's prior Liquor Code citation history and misdemeanor convictions when evaluating good repute. The Court reversed the Commonwealth Court's decision, which had required the Board to disprove good repute and had deemed the prior history irrelevant.

Holdings

1. Under section 404 of the Liquor Code, the liquor-license applicant bears the burden of proving that the applicant is a person of good repute.
2. An applicant's prior Liquor Code citation history, including citations connected with other licensed establishments operated by the applicant, is relevant and may be considered in determining good repute for a liquor-license transfer.
3. Prior misdemeanor convictions are relevant and may be considered in determining whether a liquor-license applicant is a person of good repute, although misdemeanor convictions alone may not necessarily authorize denial where the statute separately identifies recent felony convictions as a disqualifier.
4. Double-jeopardy principles do not bar the Board from considering previously adjudicated and sanctioned Liquor Code citations in a later civil liquor-licensing proceeding.
5. The applicant waived its distinct argument that the corporate-applicant provision of section 404 controlled because the argument was not raised in the Commonwealth Court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the liquor-license applicant or the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board bears the burden of proving good repute under section 404 of the Liquor Code.
2. Whether an applicant's prior Liquor Code citation history is relevant to determining whether the applicant is a person of good repute.
3. Whether an applicant's prior misdemeanor criminal convictions are relevant to determining whether the applicant is a person of good repute.
4. Whether consideration of settled Liquor Code citations in a later license-transfer proceeding violates double-jeopardy principles.
5. Whether the applicant's unpreserved argument that the corporate-applicant provisions of section 404 controlled the matter was waived.

Disposition

reversed