Griswold Inn, Inc. v. State
Decision Date | 21 April 1981 |
Citation | 183 Conn. 552,441 A.2d 16 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | , 27 A.L.R.4th 1144 GRISWOLD INN, INC. et al. v. STATE of Connecticut et al. |
Charles M. Tighe, Essex, for plaintiffs.
Robert F. Vacchelli, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom, on the brief, were Carl R. Ajello, Atty. Gen., and Richard M. Sheridan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants.
Margaret Hayman and Martha Stone, Hartford, filed a brief as amici curiae.
Before BOGDANSKI, PETERS, HEALEY, ARMENTANO and WRIGHT, JJ.
In this case the plaintiffs, Griswold Inn, Inc., et al. sought to have the Superior Court declare unconstitutional General Statutes §§ 30-91, 30-74, and 30-77 insofar as they prohibit sale of alcoholic liquor on Good Friday. They further sought to enjoin the defendants from enforcing those statutes. Pursuant to Practice Book §§ 3133 and 3134, the case is before this court on reservation.
The facts relevant to a determination of the issues have been agreed upon by the parties. The pertinent stipulated facts are as follows: "... Good Friday is an annual day of holiness of the Christian religious faith upon which those professing that faith commemorate the death by crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the founding inspiration of that faith, whose death is by them believed to constitute an act of atonement for human transgressions against the commandments of a Supreme Being acknowledged by that faith.
"As a result of the intimidating effect upon them of said statutes of the state of Connecticut and their inability to offer for sale and to sell and serve alcoholic liquor lawfully on Good Friday, the plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer the loss of revenues, income and profits from the sale (of food and alcoholic liquor and) the letting of rooms in their businesses on each such day ...." and the weekend following such day.
The pertinent questions reserved for this court are: (a)
Because we conclude that §§ 30-91, 30-74 and 30-77 are unconstitutional in that they prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages on Good Friday, in violation of article seventh of the constitution of the state of Connecticut, and the first and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution, we need not resolve the other questions presented. 1
This court, in Snyder v. Newtown, 147 Conn. 374, 385, 161 A.2d 770 (1960), appeal dismissed, 365 U.S. 299, 81 S.Ct. 692, 5 L.Ed.2d 688 (1961), construed article seventh, § 1, of the Connecticut constitution of 1955 2 and held that its purpose was to erect "a wall of separation between Church and State," and thus had a purpose similar to that of the Establishment Clause of the first amendment of the United States constitution. 3
The United States Supreme Court sets forth a three-part test to determine whether a law violates the Establishment Clause. "(T)o pass muster under the Establishment Clause the law in question, first, must reflect a clearly secular legislative purpose, second, must have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and, third, must avoid excessive governmental entanglement with religion." (Citations omitted.) Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 772-73, 93 S.Ct. 2955, 2965-66, 37 L.Ed.2d 948 (1973). If a legislative enactment fails any one part of the test, it must fall. Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 101 S.Ct. 192, 66...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Santiago
...opposed to homosexual conduct of this state's unwillingness to approve or condone such conduct"); see also Griswold Inn, Inc. v. State, 183 Conn. 552, 561-62, 441 A.2d 16 (1981) (court is not bound to accept most constitutionally favorable interpretation of state action). 63. Among the many......
-
State v. Santiago
...justification, the court should presume that that was the justification. The majority's reliance on Griswold Inn, Inc. v. State, 183 Conn. 552, 561-62, 441 A.2d 116 (1981), in support of its claim to the contrary is misplaced. In that case, the court held that it was not bound to accept the......
-
Martin v. Beer Bd. for City of Dickson
...for singling out Good Friday as the only day during the year when alcoholic beverages could not be sold. Griswold Inn, Inc. v. Connecticut, 183 Conn. 552, 441 A.2d 16, 20-21 (1981).27 Tenn.Code Ann. § 15-1-101 (1992).28 Francis H. Tranum's My Tennessee is Tennessee's official public school ......
-
Cologne v. Westfarms Associates
...U.S. 881, 94 S.Ct. 27, 38 L.Ed.2d 128 (1973); State v. Ferrell, 191 Conn. 37, 45 n. 12, 463 A.2d 573 (1983); Griswold Inn, Inc. v. State, 183 Conn. 552, 559 n. 3, 441 A.2d 16 (1981); Fasulo v. Arafeh, 173 Conn. 473, 475, 378 A.2d 553 (1977); Horton v. Meskill, 172 Conn. 615, 641-42, 376 A.2......
-
Connecticut's Free Speech Clauses: a Framework and an Agenda
...to lead. If this article makes even a small contribution toward that end, I shall be gratified indeed. 1 Griswold Inn v. Connecticut, 183 Conn. 552, 559, 441 A.2d 16, 20 n. 3 (1981) (establishment clause); Society for Sav. v. Chestnut Estates, Inc., 176 Conn. 563, 409 A.2d 1020 (1979) (due ......