Commonwealth v. Dimas
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rhodes, P. J.,
Appellant was charged before an alderman with the violation of section 15 of the Act of May 17, 1917, P. L. 208, as amended, 63 PS §321, which prohibits the use of the word “drug store” or “pharmacy” in the conduct of a business unless the place of business is in fact a drug store or pharmacy duly registered and authorized. After hearing, the magistrate found the appellant guilty, and imposed a fine of $50 and costs. Appellant was allowed to appeal to the Court of Quarter Sessions of Berks County. A hearing de novo was held before that court. The court found that…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Commonwealth v. SweeneySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- People v. BernsteinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1932
- Commonwealth v. BlackCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1944
3Cited by2 opinions
- Commonwealth v. McCauleySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
- Riff v. Morgan PharmacySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986