Connecticut Theatrical Corp. v. City of New Britain
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Writing for the Court | Before BALDWIN; MELLITZ |
| Citation | 147 Conn. 546,163 A.2d 548 |
| Parties | CONNECTICUT THEATRICAL CORPORATION et al. v. CITY OF NEW BRITAIN. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
| Decision Date | 26 July 1960 |
Page 548
v.
CITY OF NEW BRITAIN.
[147 Conn. 547]
Page 549
Irving S. Ribicoff, Hartford, with whom were Louise H. Hunt, Hartford, and Steven E. Perakos, New Britain, for appellants (plaintiffs).Andrew P. Denuzze, Asst. Corp. Coun., New Britain, for appellee (defendant).
Before [147 Conn. 546] BALDWIN, C. J., and KING, MURPHY, MELLITZ and SHEA, JJ.
[147 Conn. 547] MELLITZ, Associate Justice.
The plaintiffs brought this action for a declaratory judgment determining the validity of an ordinance enacted by the city of New Britain requiring the attendance of a police officer during every performance at a moving picture theater and compelling the owner or operator of the theater to pay to the police benefit fund, for such police services, a sum equal to the officer's pay plus ten cents a day. The plaintiffs also sought an injunction restraining the city from enforcing the ordinance as it applied to their theaters. The trial court concluded that the ordinance was constitutional and enforceable except as to the portion thereof requiring the payment of ten cents per day to the police benefit fund, and the plaintiffs have appealed.
The New Britain charter was adopted by a special [147 Conn. 548] act of the legislature in 1905. 14 Spec. Laws 915. The common council is the legislative body of the city, with power to enact ordinances relating to a variety of subjects, including the establishment and maintenance of a police force, the preservation of order, and the enforcement of laws of the state and ordinances of the city by means of that police force. Id., 935. A provision of the charter confers upon the common council power 'to enact ordinances concerning the regulation of moving picture exhibitions and the licensing of such exhibitions or the place where given.' 17 Spec. Laws 1114, § 8. An ordinance requires the owner, proprietor, manager or person in charge of any moving picture theater or public dance hall 'to have in attendance at every public performance or gathering either a regular or a supernumerary member of the city police force, whose duty it shall be to preserve order and see that all ordinances and statutes are complied with and all exits remain unlocked and all fire escapes be ready for immediate use during the entire performance or gathering.' New Britain Ordinances, c. 13, § 11 (1952). The ordinance provides further that the owner shall be required to pay to the police benefit fund for police services a sum equal to the pay of the policeman plus 10 cents per day. By an amendment in 1952, a $10 rate of pay per day for police was established. In 1927, the legislature enacted what is now General Statutes § 29-109, the pertinent portion of which reads: 'No moving picture projector involving the use of a photographic film shall be operated in any public building or place of public assemblage or entertainment until such precautions as the commissioner of state police specifies have been taken against fire, panic or other personal hazards and a certificate of approval for such premises[147 Conn. 549] obtained from the commissioner specifying the number of persons that may be admitted to such premises or place at any one time.' Detailed regulations were promulgated by the commissioner of state police pursuant to the statute. These regulations do not require the attendance of police officers at performances. Nor do the regulations provide for protection of theater patrons so far as personal offenses or other violations of the law are concerned. Approximately 200 indoor motion picture theaters come under the jurisdiction of the state police motion picture inspector, and theaters are inspected once or twice a month.
Page 550
The plaintiffs own or operate all of the moving picture theaters in New Britain. Two of the theaters were acquired in 1929. Attendance has decreased substantially during the last few years. The staff at each theater fluctuates and is increased as attendance increases. The theaters are opened at 1:30 p. m., and policemen are on duty from 2:40 p. m. until closing time; their lunch hour precedes their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mack v. Saars
...consideration and decision. Cyphers v. Allyn, 142 Conn. 699, 705, 118 A.2d 318; Connecticut Theatrical Corporation v. New Britain, 147 Conn. 546, 553, 163 A.2d 548. Our existing legislation cannot be construed to prohibit this relationship. The board lacked the power and competence under th......
-
Bauer v. Waste Management of Connecticut, Inc., Nos. 14949
...(1995); Aaron v. Conservation Commission, supra, 183 Conn. 532, 537, 441 A.2d 30 (1981); Connecticut Theatrical Corp. v. New Britain, 147 Conn. 546, 553, 163 A.2d 548 (1960); Eden v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 139 Conn. 59, 62, 89 A.2d 746 (1952); it would be contradictory to allow Wast......
-
Builders Service Corp., Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Com'n of Town of East Hampton, No. 13205
...v. Miller, 126 Conn. 373, 377, 12 A.2d 192 [1940].' State v. Gordon, supra; see also Connecticut Theatrical Corporation v. New Britain, 147 Conn. 546, 553, 163 A.2d 548 (1960). 'Every intendment is to be made [208 Conn. 290] in favor of the validity of [an] ordinance and it is the duty of t......
-
State v. Schaffel, No. CR
...the means to achieve its goals are unreasonable, discriminatory or arbitrary. Connecticut Theatrical Corporation v. City of New Britain, 147 Conn. 546, 553, 163 A.2d 548. Unless a clear violation of constitutionality is shown, the presumption of constitutionality must sustain the ordinance.......
-
Mack v. Saars
...consideration and decision. Cyphers v. Allyn, 142 Conn. 699, 705, 118 A.2d 318; Connecticut Theatrical Corporation v. New Britain, 147 Conn. 546, 553, 163 A.2d 548. Our existing legislation cannot be construed to prohibit this relationship. The board lacked the power and competence under th......
-
Builders Service Corp., Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Com'n of Town of East Hampton, 13205
...v. Miller, 126 Conn. 373, 377, 12 A.2d 192 [1940].' State v. Gordon, supra; see also Connecticut Theatrical Corporation v. New Britain, 147 Conn. 546, 553, 163 A.2d 548 (1960). 'Every intendment is to be made [208 Conn. 290] in favor of the validity of [an] ordinance and it is the duty of t......
-
Blue Sky Bar, Inc. v. Town of Stratford, No. 12837
...v. Miller, 126 Conn. 373, 377, 12 A.2d 192 [1940]." State v. Gordon, supra; see also Connecticut Theatrical Corporation v. New Britain, 147 Conn. 546, 553, 163 A.2d 548 (1960). "Every intendment is to be made in favor of the validity of [an] ordinance and it is the duty of the court to sust......
-
Hudson Circle Servicenter, Inc. v. Town of Kearny
...exact fees from private businesses for the provision of these compulsory services. Connecticut Theatrical Corp. v. City of New Britain, 147 Conn. 546, 163 A.2d 548 (Sup.Ct. of Err.1960) (theater owners required to pay for the attendance of a police officer at each performance); American Bas......