Horan v. Commonwealth
This text of 526 A.2d 458 (Horan v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Opinion by
Michael J. Horan has filed an action for declaratory judgment1 in this Courts original jurisdiction2 challenging the constitutionality of the Act of February 28, 1985, P.L. 1 (Act 1985), which prohibited tournaments [323]*323within premises licensed by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB). The Commonwealth and the PLCB have filed preliminary objections, which are before the Court at this time. We sustain the preliminary objections and dismiss Horans complaint.
In his complaint, Horan avers that he is engaged in the business of operating tournaments in this Commonwealth and that the enactment of Act 1985 violated his rights to equal protection and due process of law.3 Horan does not allege that he owns a liquor license. Act 1985 repealed former Section 476 of the Liquor Code,4 which permitted tournaments in licensed premises.
The Commonwealth and PLCB assert four grounds-in support of their preliminary objections: (1) failure to state a cause of action (demurrer); (2) lack of standing to raise the claims asserted; (3) failure to join indispensable parties (licensed premises); and (4) ripeness.
Turning to the Commonwealths demurrer, we note that preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer [324]*324are not to be sustained unless the law says with a certainty that no recovery is possible and the complaint is clearly insufficient to establish any right to relief. Allegheny County v. Commonwealth, 507 Pa. 360, 490 A.2d 402 (1985). All well-pleaded, material, relevant facts found in the complaint and every inference fairly deducible therefrom are admitted as true by the objector. Id.
Act 1985 regulates the operation of tournaments in licensed establishments. Tournaments are prohibited except for those organized on the behalf of charitable organizations and conducted in areas removed from alcohol.5 Horan alleges that he was injured because he is not permitted to continue operating his tournament business in establishments licensed by the PLCB.
In Replogle v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, Pa. , 523 A.2d 327 (1987), our Supreme Court recently restated the well-settled principle that the legislature may impose such conditions upon the granting of liquor licenses as it sees fit. Pa. at , 523 A.2d at 330. Thus, the regulation of tournaments on licensed premises is well within the legislatures discretion. Moreover, the loss of an opportunity for business income tied to a liquor license is not compensable where there is no property taken for public use. Id.
Accepting all averments in Horans complaint as true, we hold that he fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.6 The Commonwealth and PLCBs preliminary objections are granted.
[325]*325Order
After argument and upon consideration of the respondents’ preliminary objections and petitioner’s reply thereto, it is ordered that the preliminary objections are granted and Horan’s action for declaratory judgment is dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
526 A.2d 458, 106 Pa. Commw. 321, 1987 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 2182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horan-v-commonwealth-pacommwct-1987.