Elliott v. State
Decision Date | 07 January 1926 |
Docket Number | Criminal 620 |
Citation | 29 Ariz. 389,242 P. 340 |
Parties | F. E. ELLIOTT, Appellant, v. STATE, Respondent |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Yuma. F. L. Ingraham, Judge. Judgment reversed and cause remanded with instructions.
Mr Will E. Ryan, for Appellant.
Mr John W. Murphy, Attorney General, Mr. Earl Anderson and Mr Frank J. Duffy, Assistant Attorneys General, Mr. Henry C. Kelly, County Attorney, Mr. H. H. Baker and Mr. H. Wupperman, for the State.
F. E. Elliott, hereinafter called the appellant, has appealed from a conviction for violation of Ordinance No. 37 enacted by the town of Somerton, Yuma county, Arizona, which reads, so far as material in this case, as follows:
Appellant admitted that on the Sunday in question his store was open, and that he sold in the course of his usual trade, among other things, groceries and hardware. A demurrer was interposed to the complaint on the ground that it did not state a public offense, which was overruled by the superior court, and it is agreed by counsel that the sole question before us is as to the legislative power of the town of Somerton to enact the ordinance in question.
There are some five assignments of error which we will not consider specifically, but rather as to the general issues of law which they present. The principle involved is one of considerable importance, and of first impression in this state, so we shall discuss somewhat fully the constitutional questions raised.
The ordinance is one of the type generally known as "Sunday closing laws," and the right of the state to pass legislation of this kind has often been before the courts. The objections raised are usually based upon two propositions: First, that, under the provisions found in most Constitutions securing liberty of conscience, such laws are per se unconstitutional; and, second, that the specific statute conflicts with the provisions also generally found guaranteeing equal protection of law to all citizens, and prohibiting the granting of any special privileges or immunities.
The reasons on which general Sunday closing laws are upheld are well stated by Justice FIELD in Ex parte Newman, 9 Cal. 502, 519-526. His language has been repeatedly approved by courts of last resort, including the Supreme Court of the United States, and, because of the clarity and irresistible logic of his opinion, we quote therefrom:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Two Guys From Harrison, Inc. v. Furman
...62 So.2d 5 (Fla.Sup.Ct.1952); Gronlund v. Salt Lake City, 113 Utah 284, 194 P.2d 464 (Sup.Ct.1948). See Elliott v. State, 29 Ariz. 389, 242 P. 340, 46 A.L.R. 284 (Sup.Ct.1926); Ex parte Westerfield, 55 Cal. 550, 36 Am.Rep. 47 (Sup.Ct.1880); McKaig v. Kansas City, 363 Mo. 1033, 256 S.W.2d 81......
-
Minersville School Dist. v. Gobitis
...civilization disrespect for the Sabbath shocks and is forbidden, State v. Blair, 130 Kan. 863, 288 P. 729; Elliott v. State, 29 Ariz. 389, 242 P. 340, 46 A.L.R. 284; Shover v. State, 10 Ark. 259, 263; State v. Bott, 31 La.Ann. 663, 665, 33 Am.Rep. 224; Lindenmuller v. People, 33 Barb., N.Y.......
-
EMPRESS ADULT VIDEO AND BOOKSTORE v. Tucson
...of the Federal Constitution. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Purcell, 187 Ariz. 74, 927 P.2d 340 (App. 1996). Relying on Elliott v. State, 29 Ariz. 389, 242 P. 340 (1926), Empress contends § 13-1422 violates article II, § 13 because "adult oriented business[es] are the only businesses barred fr......
-
Gowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher v. Crown Kosher Super Market of Massachusetts, Inc Two Guys From v. Ginley Braunfeld v. Brown, HARRISON-ALLENTOW
...v. McFadyen, 1953, 259 Ala. 205, 66 So.2d 83 (issue not raised by litigants; court nevertheless considers it); Elliott v. State, 1926, 29 Ariz. 389, 242 P. 340, 46 A.L.R. 284 (dictum); Shover v. State, 1850, 10 Ark. 259; Scales v. State, 1886, 47 Ark. 476, 1 S.W. 769; Ex parte Koser, 1882, ......