Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Dimas

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 15, 1951No. Appeal, 180PublishedCited by 2 opinions

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

  1. Commonwealth v. SweeneySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
  2. People v. BernsteinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1932
  3. Commonwealth v. BlackCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1944

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. McCauleySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  2. Riff v. Morgan PharmacySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API