State ex rel. Maloney v. Sierra
Decision Date | 23 November 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 8964,8964 |
Citation | 82 N.M. 125,477 P.2d 301,1970 NMSC 144 |
Parties | STATE of New Mexico ex rel., James A. MALONEY, Attorney General, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David R. SIERRA (Substituted for L. A. McCulloch, Jr.), Director, Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
The Attorney General filed a declaratory judgment action under our §§ 22--6--1 to 22--6--3, N.M.S.A.1953, against the Director of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. He sought a ruling (1) that ch. 280, Laws 1969, signed by the Governor on April 7, 1969 (§§ 46--10--14.1, 46--10--14.5, N.M.S.A.1953 (1969 Supp.)), is unconstitutional; (2) that ch. 216, Laws 1969, signed by the Governor on April 3, 1969, not codified in our statutes, is the controlling statute and that it permits the sale and consumption of alcoholic liquors by the drink on licensed premises of dispensers on Sundays between the hours of 7:00 a.m. until midnight, and (3) that the defendant Director be enjoined from enforcing ch. 280, supra.
The Director answered praying that the district court declare ch. 280 constitutional, that its enactment repealed ch. 216, and in the event ch. 216 is in effect, it does not permit the sale by drink during the Sunday hours but only the service and consumption thereof in accordance with proposed regulation No. 21 of the Director. This proposed regulation generally dealt with the serving of alcoholic beverages on Sundays in counties not subject to the county option provision of ch. 280, provided such beverages are 'pre-sold or granted without cost' on a preceding legal day.
The Intervenors maintain public horserace tracks in the state and are the owners of liquor licenses. They opposed the position of the Attorney General and claimed that § 2, ch. 280, is constitutional and severable from any unconstitutional portions of ch. 280 and that § 2 permitted them to sell, serve or permit the consumption by the drink on their licensed premises on Sundays during racing reason between the hours of 12:00 noon and 11:00 p.m.
The defendant Director filed a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment, asking for a construction of § 7(C), ch. 197, Laws 1969 (§ 46--2--14(C), N.M.S.A.1953 (1969 Supp.)):
'To be effective, any regulation issued by the director shall be reviewed by the attorney general prior to being filed as required by law and the fact of his review shall be indicated thereon.'
In his counterclaim the Director said that he submitted his regulations 21, 22 and 25 to the Attorney General who rejected them. He claimed that the Attorney General had no power under § 7 of the Act, supra, to reject his proposed regulations, and that a rejection did not affect their validity or enforceability; but if the Attorney General had power to reject his proposed regulations, the action rejecting the three particular regulations was unlawful, arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable. The Attorney General replied that his rejection of the regulations was valid, and denied any unlawful exercise of his authority.
The issues were submitted to the court on stipulated exhibits. Before proceeding any further, we quote in part the liquor acts involved:
Chapter 216, Laws of 1969, First Session of Twenty-Ninth Legislature, signed April 3, 1969, not codified.
'Section 1. Section 46--10--14.1 NMSA 1953 (being Laws 1959, Chapter 303, Section 1) is amended to read:
Chapter 280, Laws of 1969, First Session of Twenty-Ninth Legislature, signed April 7, 1969 §§ 46--10--14.1, 46--10--14.5, N.M.S.A.1953 (1969 Supp.).
'Section 1. Section 46--10--14.1 NMSA 1953 (being Laws 1959, Chapter 303, Section 1) is repealed and a new Section 46--10--14.1 NMSA 1953 is enacted to read:
Section 2. SUNDAY SALES AT RACETRACKS--Notwithstanding other provisions of the Liquor Control Act or Section 46--10--14.1 NMSA 1953, or the outcome of any election, it is lawful for the holder of a dispenser's license whose licensed premises are located on a public horse-race track, licensed by the state racing commission, to sell, serve or permit the consumption of alcoholic liquors by the drink on Sunday during the racing season between the hours of 12:00 noon and 11:00 p.m.'
The district court determined that an actual controversy existed between the parties and that the public interest required a settlement of the controversy. It found that only three counties, Bernalillo, Lincoln and Taos, qualified to conduct a local option election under ch. 280, to decide whether Sunday sales would be permitted. It found Section 1 of ch. 280, supra, unconstitutional. The specific finding was:
As to Chapter 216, the court found:
'16. That Subsection A...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rodriguez v. Brand W. Dairy
...was rendered, and no appeal was taken on the constitutional question. See State ex rel. Maloney v. Sierra, 1970–NMSC–144, ¶¶ 8–11, 82 N.M. 125, 477 P.2d 301 (stating that the portion of a declaratory judgment on a constitutional question that was not challenged on appeal was final).{44} The......
-
Chronis v. State ex rel. Rodriguez
... ... See State ex rel. Maloney v. Sierra, 82 N.M. 125, 477 P.2d 301 (1970) ... Where, as here, a [severability clause], has been incorporated expressly stating the legislative ... ...
-
Dick v. City of Portales
...restrain, not to promote. Any loosening of that policy is the business of the legislature, not the courts. State ex rel. Maloney v. Sierra, 82 N.M. 125, 135, 477 P.2d 301, 311 (1970). The state has broad police power to regulate the liquor business, and the legislature may impose more strin......
-
In re Byrnes
... ... Byrnes, if we're going to get through this, I think that you need to state the nature of your objection at — ... MR. BYRNES: My — ... THE ... In State ex rel. Wood v. Raynolds, 22 N.M. 1, 158 P. 413 (1916), the Supreme Court ... See also State ex rel. Maloney v. Sierra, 82 N.M. 125, 130, 477 P.2d 301, 306 (1970) ... With regard to ... ...