Piggly-Wiggly of Jacksonville, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, PIGGLY-WIGGLY
| Decision Date | 13 August 1976 |
| Docket Number | PIGGLY-WIGGLY |
| Citation | 336 So.2d 1078 |
| Parties | OF JACKSONVILLE, INC., a corporation, et al. v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, a Municipal Corporation. SC 1589. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Jenkins, Wallis & Thorn, Birmingham, for appellant.
Merrill, Merrill & Vardaman, Anniston, for appellee.
Piggly-Wiggly appeals from a preliminary injunction granted in favor of the City of Jacksonville. We reverse.
The City of Jacksonville filed its petition seeking enforcement of the provisions of Act No. 1050 of the 1971 Alabama Legislature, codified in Code of Alabama, Appendix, Vol. 14B, § 341(a30) (the Calhoun County blue law) and Code of Alabama, Tit. 14, § 420 () against Piggly-Wiggly and individual defendant-appellants. The petition alleged that Piggly-Wiggly was a corporation doing business in Calhoun County and that the individual defendant-appellants were responsible for the operation of a store which was remaining open on Sundays in violation of the previously cited statutes. The City prayed that Piggly-Wiggly be restrained from further Sunday operation.
In a motion in opposition to the prayer Piggly-Wiggly asserted that the statutes relied upon by the City are unconstitutional, unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious and have no real substantive relation to the objectives sought to be obtained by the adoption of the legislation. Piggly-Wiggly also filed a motion to dismiss, reiterating constitutional challenges, and an answer, which admitted Sunday operations but denied violation of the law because the operations were carried on with four or fewer employees. Piggly-Wiggly also cross-petitioned, praying that the statutes be declared unconstitutional and that the City of Jacksonville be enjoined from enforcing them.
The Circuit Court of Calhoun County issued a preliminary injunction against Sunday operation by Piggly-Wiggly, from which order Piggly-Wiggly appealed.
The constitutionality of Tit. 14, § 420, Code 1940, as amended, which is in question here, states in pertinent part as follows:
'Any person . . . who, being a merchant or shopkeeper, druggist excepted, keeps open store on Sunday, shall be fined not less than ten nor more than one hundred dollars, and may also be imprisoned in the county jail, or sentenced to hard labor for the county, for not more than three months. . . .'
The Calhoun County blue law, § 341(a30)(b), Appendix, Vol. 14B, includes a further exception to the general state law. Its pertinent part reads:
'. . . there is also excepted from the provisions of this section, due to public necessity and policy, The operation of a food store in which not more than four (4) persons regularly work. . . .' (Emphasis Supplied.)
The testimony on which the trial court granted injunction was the testimony of the police chief of the City of Jacksonville, J. Ross Tipton, who testified to a 'head count' of store employees under his own definition of 'regularly.' On direct examination of Chief Tipton, Mr. Vardaman, attorney for the City, asked the following:
'Q How many employees did you see?
'A It was over five.'
On cross examination, Chief Tipton, after testifying that he visited the Piggly-Wiggly Sundays on four or five occasions, testified to the following:
'Q On many of these occasions, is it not a fact that there were either three or four employees on duty at the store?
Whether these employees were regular employees was undetermined by Chief Tipton's testimony.
Piggly-Wiggly raises the following issues on appeal:
I. Whether Tit. 14, § 420, Code 1940, as amended,
(a) is an improper exercise of police power; and
(b) is in violation of the Federal Constitution by establishing a preference to certain religions which may affect the civil rights, privileges and capacities of the citizens of Alabama.
II. Whether Act No. 1050 of the 1971 Legislative Session,
(a) is so vague and indefinite as to be unconstitutional because of the inclusion of the word 'regularly'; and
(b) contains a classification which is unreasonable or without rational basis, therefore violative of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
We answer issue I in the negative and answer issue II in the affirmative; we hold that the Calhoun County blue law is unconstitutional and overturn the lower court's injunction granted in favor of the City of Jacksonville.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama wrote to issue I in Southway Discount Center, Inc. v. Moore, 315 F.Supp. 617 (1970) by quoting the general rule as found in 16A C.J.S. Constitutioinal Law § 496:
"With Sunday regulations, as with other laws passed under the police power, the legislature may classify persons or things for the purposes of legislation, provided such classification is based on reasonable distinctions and operate alike on all of the same class; but Sunday regulations which are arbitrary and based on unreasonable distinctions between different persons or classes of persons are unconstitutional."
Holding that the classification in Tit. 14, § 420 could justifiably be recognized as reasonable and valid, meeting minimum constitutional standards with regard to police power, the Federal Court upheld the statute.
Regarding part (b) of the first issue, whether § 420 is in violation of the Federal Constitution by establishing a preference for certain religions which may affect the civil rights, privileges and capacities of the citizens of Alabama, while it is not clear from the record that the appellants have established standing to raise this First Amendment right, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, this Court, in Lane v. McFadyen, 259 Ala. 205, 66 So.2d 83 (1953), held that legislative restrictions enacted under the police power of the state, requiring a day of rest at periodic intervals, do not interfere with religious freedom or liberty of conscience. See also McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 81 S.Ct. 1101, 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961). We have been shown no compelling reason to find constitutional infirmity with such statutes as § 420 represents which have been upheld against attack based upon religious grounds.
In Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599, 81 S.Ct. 1144, 6 L.Ed.2d 563 (1961), concerning a similar attack upon the Pennsylvania Sunday Law which prevented selling certain personal property on Sunday, the United States Supreme Court answered the argument of religious preference:
'. . . (t)he statute before us does not make criminal the holding of any religious belief or opinion, nor does it force anyone to embrace any religious belief or to say or believe anything in conflict with his religious tenets.
If the purpose or effect of a law is to impede the observance of one or all religions or is to discriminate invidiously between religions, that law is constitutionally invalid even though the burden may be characterized as being only indirect. But if the State regulates conduct by enacting a general law within its power, the purpose and effect of which is to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caldor's, Inc. v. Bedding Barn, Inc.
...continue to be divided. Sunday closing laws have been struck down, in whole or in part, in Alabama, Piggly-Wiggly of Jacksonville, Inc. v. Jacksonville, 336 So.2d 1078 (Ala.1976); in Georgia, Rutledge v. Gaylord's, Inc., 233 Ga. 694, 213 S.E.2d 626 (1975); in Illinois, Courtesy Motor Sales ......
-
Chambers v. State
...v. Parsons, 513 F.2d 264 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 960, 96 S.Ct. 376, 46 L.Ed.2d 289 (1975); Piggly-Wiggly of Jacksonville, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, 336 So.2d 1078 (Ala.1976); Bolin v. State, 266 Ala. 256, 96 So.2d 582 (1957); Tyus v. State, 347 So.2d 1377 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert.......
-
Harrison v. Buckhalt
...powers and within the scope of such powers. We answer yes and hold the ordinance invalid. See generally, Piggly-Wiggly of Jacksonville v. Jacksonville, 336 So.2d 1078 (Ala.1976) (number of employees of store held to be unreasonable basis for classification in light of purpose of Sunday Blue......
-
Ex parte McCurley
...one of which would be constitutional, will be given the constitutional interpretation. Piggly-Wiggly of Jacksonville, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, Ala., 336 So.2d 1078 (1976); Sanders v. State, 42 Ala.App. 67, 152 So.2d 439 (1963); Ala. State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 246 Ala. 1, 18 ......
-
THE OBSOLESCENCE OF BLUE LAWS IN THE 21ST CENTURY.
...enumerated exceptions to the statute, and the regulation did not apply to transactions between individuals. (84.) Id. at 629-30. (85.) 336 So. 2d 1078 (Al. 1976). (86.) Id. at 1080-81 (upholding the state-wide day-of-rest Blue Law as a valid exercise of legislative power). (87.) See id. at ......