Krzysztalowski v. Fortin, No. 5593
| Court | Supreme Court of New Hampshire |
| Writing for the Court | KENISON |
| Citation | 230 A.2d 750,108 N.H. 187 |
| Parties | Mary S. KRZYSZTALOWSKI v. George FORTIN et al. Jan KRZYSZTALOWSKI v. George FORTIN et al. |
| Decision Date | 30 June 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 5593 |
Page 750
v.
George FORTIN et al.
Jan KRZYSZTALOWSKI
v.
George FORTIN et al.
Decided June 30, 1967.
R. J. Shortlidge, Jr., Keene (by brief and orally), for plaintiffs.
George S. Pappagianis, Atty. Gen. and R. Peter Shapiro, Asst. Atty. Gen. (R. Peter Shapiro, Concord, orally), for defendant George Fortin.
KENISON, Chief Justice.
The power of the State to regulate the manner and methods of the sale of intoxicating liquor is well established. State v. Roberts, 74 N.H. 476, 69 A. 722, 16 L.R.A., N.S., 1115; The Manchester Press Club v. State Liquor Commission, 89 N.H. 442, 200 A. 407, 116 A.L.R. 1093; Nashua Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. State Liquor Commission, 95 N.H. 224, 60 A.2d 124; Carling Brewing Co. v. State Liquor Commission, 102 N.H. 284, 287, 155 A.2d 808. The principal issue in this case is whether the operation of state liquor stores is such a function of government as to insulate the State from tort claims under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Annot. 9 A.L.R.2d 1292. See Schippa v. W. Va. Liquor Control Commission, 132 W.Va. 51, 53 S.E.2d 609, 9 A.L.R.2d 1284.
The doctrine of sovereign immunity is deeply entrenched in this jurisdiction. Moore v. Dailey, 97 N.H. 278, 86 A.2d 342; Opinion of the Justices, 101 N.H. 546, 134 A.2d 279; Public Service Co. v. State, 102 N.H. 54, 149 A.2d 874. Leflar and Kantrowitz, Tort Liability of the States, 29 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 1363, 1389 (1954). 'The state cannot
Page 752
be sued without its consent and this immunity extends to officers of the state in the performance of their official functions.' Fourth Report, N.H. Judicial Council 34 (1952). The governmental nature of liquor sales in this state was indicated in State v. Ellard, 95 N.H. 217, 220, 60 A.2d 461, 463, where it was stated that the State Liquor Commission (RSA 176:1) is 'a part of the State government.' 'It may fairly be said that the commission in the realm of facts 'has but imaginary existence apart from that of the State itself' and that the respondent (manager of a state liquor store) was a servant of the State.' State v. Ellard, supra.The plaintiff concedes that certain functions of the State in [108 N.H. 189] regulating liquor traffic is governmental but argues that the operation of state liquor stores for profit through its own stores, whether leased or owned, is a business and is a commercial, revenue-producing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thacker v. Board of Trustees of Ohio State University, Nos. 72-105
...345, 347, 443 P.2d 1. But, see Section 75-7011, 2d Repl.Vol. 4 (Pt. 2), Montana Rev.Code. New Hampshire: Krzysztalowski v. Fortin (1967), 108 N.H. 187, 230 A.2d 750. North Carolina: Orange Cty. v. Heath (1972), 14 N.C.App. 44, 187 S.E.2d 345; Brooks v. Univ. of N. Car. (1968), 2 N.C.App. 15......
-
State v. Lake Winnipesaukee Resort, LLC, 2008–724.
...; see Board of Educ. v. A, C and S, Inc., 131 Ill.2d 428, 137 Ill.Dec. 635, 546 N.E.2d 580, 603 (1989) ; cf. Krzysztalowski v. Fortin, 108 N.H. 187, 189, 230 A.2d 750 (1967) ("The extent to which ... [sovereign] immunity should be preserved or waived is purely a legislative question." (quot......
-
Opinion of the Justices, No. 85-141
...1985. Page 1185 I. Introduction "The doctrine of sovereign immunity is deeply entrenched in this jurisdiction." Krzysztalowski v. Fortin, 108 N.H. 187, 188, 230 A.2d 750, 751 (1967). "[T]he State is ... immune from suit in its courts [unless it] consent[s]...." Sousa v. State, 115 N.H. 340,......
-
City of Dover v. Imperial Cas. & Indem. Co., No. 89-006
...that "[t]he extent to which ... immunity should be preserved or waived is purely a legislative question." Krzysztalowski v. Fortin, 108 N.H. 187, 189, 230 A.2d 750, 752 (1967) (quoting Opinion of the Justices, 101 N.H. at 549, 134 A.2d at Following the decisions in Gossler and Krzysztalowsk......
-
Thacker v. Board of Trustees of Ohio State University, s. 72-105
...345, 347, 443 P.2d 1. But, see Section 75-7011, 2d Repl.Vol. 4 (Pt. 2), Montana Rev.Code. New Hampshire: Krzysztalowski v. Fortin (1967), 108 N.H. 187, 230 A.2d 750. North Carolina: Orange Cty. v. Heath (1972), 14 N.C.App. 44, 187 S.E.2d 345; Brooks v. Univ. of N. Car. (1968), 2 N.C.App. 15......
-
State v. Lake Winnipesaukee Resort, LLC, 2008–724.
...; see Board of Educ. v. A, C and S, Inc., 131 Ill.2d 428, 137 Ill.Dec. 635, 546 N.E.2d 580, 603 (1989) ; cf. Krzysztalowski v. Fortin, 108 N.H. 187, 189, 230 A.2d 750 (1967) ("The extent to which ... [sovereign] immunity should be preserved or waived is purely a legislative question." (quot......
-
State v. Lake Winnipesaukee Resort, LLC, 2008-724.
...see Board of Educ. v. A, C and S, Inc., 131 Ill.2d 428, 137 Ill.Dec. 635, 546 N.E.2d 580, 603 (1989); cf. Krzysztalowski v. Fortin, 108 N.H. 187, 189, 230 A.2d 750 (1967) ("The extent to which ... [sovereign] immunity should be preserved or waived is purely a legislative question." (quotati......
-
Opinion of the Justices, 85-141
...1985. Page 1185 I. Introduction "The doctrine of sovereign immunity is deeply entrenched in this jurisdiction." Krzysztalowski v. Fortin, 108 N.H. 187, 188, 230 A.2d 750, 751 (1967). "[T]he State is ... immune from suit in its courts [unless it] consent[s]...." Sousa v. State, 115 N.H. 340,......