City of Warwick v. Almac's, Inc.
Decision Date | 19 March 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 81-180-A,81-180-A |
Citation | 442 A.2d 1265 |
Parties | CITY OF WARWICK v. ALMAC'S, INC. ppeal. |
Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
This is an appeal from a Superior Court judgment dismissing a complaint brought by the plaintiffs, the State of Rhode Island and the city of Warwick (the city), against the defendants, certain retail establishments 1 located in the city of Warwick. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the defendants from selling products on Sunday other than those for which their Sunday sales licenses were issued. The plaintiffs argue that the trial justice erred in dismissing the complaint and in holding that G.L.1956 (1976 Reenactment) § 5-23-2, P.L.1976, ch. 169, § 1, which authorizes the issuance of Sunday sales licenses only to certain "small" retail establishments, violated the defendants' constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. Two defendants cross-appeal from the denial of the defendants' motion to dismiss the action, contending that the statute sued upon, § 5-23-6(C), as enacted by P.L.1976, ch. 169, § 2, does not provide for injunctive relief under the circumstances of this case.
The statute further provides that Sunday work shall be strictly voluntary and that employees must be paid for Sunday work at a rate of no less than time and a half their regular rate. The final paragraph of § 5-23-2 provides for a limited commodity-based exemption, as follows:
The sanctions for violation of § 5-23-2 are set forth in § 5-23-6, which provides:
According to the agreed statement of facts, the City of Warwick Board of Public Safety (the board) routinely and without limitation grants and issues Sunday sales licenses to those retailers that satisfy the eighty-hour-aggregate-average-of-employment limitation (small retailers). The products sold by small retailers include products similar to, and sometimes identical to, products sold by retailers that exceed the eighty-hour limitation (large retailers).
Nine of the ten defendants are large retailers that obtained Sunday sales licenses from the board based upon affidavits in which they stated that they engaged in the sale of bakery and/or gardening products. The remaining defendant, Lee's Superstore, Inc. (Lee's), obtained a license after submitting an affidavit in which it stated that it met the eighty-hour limitation. Following the issuance of such licenses and prior to February 1, 1981, the board sent letters to all defendants notifying them that their licenses permitted the sale of only the bakery and/or gardening products described in the final paragraph of § 5-23-2. On Sunday, February 1, 1981, and on Sunday, February 8, 1981, defendants opened for business, selling products other than such bakery and/or gardening goods.
On February 10, 1981, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, seeking both preliminary and permanent injunctions against defendants pursuant to § 5-23-6(C). A consolidated hearing on the merits was held, at which hearing the Attorney General intervened as a party plaintiff.
Following this hearing, the trial justice denied plaintiff's prayer for injunctive relief and dismissed the complaint on the basis that the size classification established in § 5-23-2 was unconstitutional, stating:
State Sunday closing laws have undergone repeated constitutional challenges in recent years. In a series of landmark cases in 1961, the Supreme Court of the United States considered whether the closing laws of three states violated the equal-protection clause. See Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599, 81 S.Ct. 1144, 6 L.Ed.2d 563 (1961); Gallagher v. Crown Kosher Super Market, 366 U.S. 617, 81 S.Ct. 1122, 6 L.Ed.2d 536 (1961); McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 81 S.Ct. 1101, 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961); Two Guys from Harrison-Allentown, Inc. v. McGinley, 366 U.S. 582, 81 S.Ct. 1135, 6 L.Ed.2d 551 (1961). In those cases, the Court found that the purpose of modern Sunday closing laws was to promote a common day of rest and relaxation and held that promotion of this objective was a valid exercise of the state's power to protect the health, safety, recreation, and general welfare of its citizens. E.g., McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. at 444-45, 81 S.Ct. at 1115, 6 L.Ed.2d at 410. Although noting that the challenged statutory schemes were riddled with exemptions based on the commodity and/or type of activity involved, in each case the Court held that the scheme withstood the minimal judicial scrutiny given to an equal-protection challenge to police-power legislation. In McGowan the Court set forth the standard of review to be applied in these cases:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Donahue v. Rhode Island Dept. of Mental Health
...settled that the words contained in enactments of the General Assembly should not be interpreted in a vacuum. City of Warwick v. Almac's, Inc., 442 A.2d 1265, 1272 (R.I. 1982). Statutes should be read to convey "a definite and sensible meaning that does not contradict an evident legislative......
-
Blue Cross of Rhode Island v. Cannon, Civ. A. No. 83-0772 S.
......Ocean State Master Health Plan, Inc., Defendant/Intervenor. . Civ. A. No. 83-0772 S. . United States ... See City of Warwick v. Almac's, Inc., 442 A.2d 1265, 1272 (R.I.1982). To merit ......
-
Sanzi v. Shetty
...to an unjust, absurd or unreasonable result. Bogosian v. Woloohojian, 93 F.Supp.2d 145 (D.R.I. 2000); City of Warwick v. Almac's, Inc., 442 A.2d 1265 (R.I. 1982). Legislation that is in derogation of the common law is subject to strict construction. Bandoni v. State, 715 A.2d 580 (R.I. 1998......
-
Sanzi v. Shetty
...to an unjust, absurd or unreasonable result. Bogosian v. Woloohojian, 93 F.Supp.2d 145 (D.R.I. 2000); City of Warwick v. Almac's, Inc., 442 A.2d 1265 (R.I. 1982). Legislation that is in derogation of the common law is subject to strict construction. Bandoni v. State, 715 A.2d 580 (R.I. 1998......