Legal Opinion · Dissent

Red Sky, Inc. v. Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 12, 1995Published

1DissentPellegrini, Judge

I respectfully dissent. I believe the majority opinion erred in holding that if a manufacturer packages beer containers together, in this case, 24 beer cans in a cardboard tray or box, then beer distributors are precluded from replacing damaged cans in a case with intact cans from other damaged cases to make a full case. The definition of “original container” as used in Section 441(a) of the Liquor Code1 means only that the beer must be in the same container that holds the liquid as sealed by the manufacturer but not in the same overall package. To adopt the majority’s view, if a manufacturer…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Uniontown Area School District v. Pennsylvania Human Relations CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
  3. Tool Sales & Service Co. v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  4. Pennsylvania Electric Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  5. Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement v. Beer & Pop Warehouse, Inc.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1992

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API