Taggart v. Latah County, 8389

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Idaho
Citation298 P.2d 979,78 Idaho 99
Docket NumberNo. 8389,8389
PartiesJoe TAGGART, Bill Chaney, Donald Dickinsen, Ben Krieger, Clarence E. White and Keith Harland, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LATCH COUNTY, Idaho, and its Board of Commissioners, and Each Commissioner Thereof, to-wit: J. O. Broyles, Eugene Taylor and Orval Snow, Defendants-Respondents.
Decision Date19 June 1956

Felton & Bielenberg, Moscow, for appellants.

Graydon W. Smith, Atty. Gen., Edward J. Aschenbrener, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lloyd G. Martinson, Pros. Atty., Moscow, for respondents.

ANDERSON, Justice.

This is an action for declaratory judgment, I.C. title 10, chapter 12, brought by owners of licensed beer establishments located in unincorporated territory in Latah County, Idaho, challenging the validity of an ordinance of said county enacted November 15, 1954. The ordinance in question forbids the sale and consumption of beer in these establishments between midnight and 7 o'clock in the morning on week days and all day Sunday, although state law, I.C. sec. 23-1012, prohibits sale only between the hours of 1 o'clock a. m. and 7 o'clock a. m.

The defendants filed a general demurrer to the complaint, which the district court sustained without leave to amend, and dismissed the action.

Appellants contend that the complaint is not subject to general demurrer because it states a justiciable issue. They further contend that the ordinance discriminates against them in favor of retailers whose premises are located within incorporated municipalities in Latah County, Idaho.

Respondents contend that the ordinance is a reasonable regulation, and not substantial prohibition of traffic in alcoholic beverages. They further contend that I.C. sec. 23-1012 is a prohibitory statute and does not preclude counties from further limiting the hours at which beer may be sold at retail in counties outside incorporated municipalities.

Although the trial court found the complaint did not state a cause of action, a justiciable issue is presented in this case, and the record discloses sufficient facts to base a decision upon and to obviate another appeal. We deem it proper to state our views upon the merits. Grayot v. Summers, 75 Idaho 125, 269 P.2d 765. The decisive question to be determined is not one of fact, but is purely one of law: That is, as to the validity of the ordinance in question.

In the case of Barth v. DeCoursey, 69 Idaho 469, 207 P.2d 1165, it was held that a county could not prohibit sale of beer by arbitrarily refusing to grant licenses for its sale, but that the county could make reasonable regulations, as long as they were not prohibitory.

The case of Clyde Hess Distributing Co. v. Bonneville County, 69 Idaho 505, 210 P.2d 798, is nearly identical with the one before us, both as to the facts and questions of law. The court in that case stated in 69 Idaho at page 510, 210 P.2d at page 800:

'Thus, it appears that the legislature by Section 23-1012, I.C., has not occupied and did not intend to occupy the whole field of hours of sale of beer, thereby making any regulation by the county necessarily inconsistent with the general law. Ex parte Iverson, 199 Cal. 582, 250 P. 681.

'Both Section 23-1012, I.C., and the regulation in question are prohibitory in terms. The regulation merely goes further than the statute and prescribes additional hours during which sale of beer is prohibited. Am.Jur. 37, page 790, states the applicable rule under such circumstances as follows: 'Thus, where both an ordinance and a statute are prohibitory and the only difference between them is that the ordinance goes further in its prohibition, but not counter to the prohibition under the statute, and the municipality does not attempt to authorize by the ordinance what the legislature ha forbidden or forbid what the legislature has expressly licensed, authorized, or required, there is nothing contradictory between the provisions of the statute and the ordinance because of which they cannot coexist and be effective.''

The court found that there is no express statute authorizing the sale of beer during any prescribed hours, and concluded that the county regulation in the Hess case did not conflict with the state law insofar as it extended the hours during which beer may not be sold.

This court in the above-mentioned case considered the various statutes applicable and Article 12, section 2, of the Idaho Constitution, and reached the conclusion that the regulations prescribing hours in which beer may not be sold in addition to those set out in I.C. sec. 23-1012 were valid, and were regulations which the board of county commissioners had a right to make and enforce so far as the territory embraced within their county was concerned, exclusive of municipalities. Regulation of traffic in beer and intoxicating liquors is a police regulation within the meaning of this section of the Idaho Constitution. State v. Robbins, 59 Idaho 279, 81 P.2d 1078; State v. Musser, 67 Idaho 214, 176 P.2d 199.

Appellants contend that in the Hess case it was not urged that the ordinance was unreasonable, oppressive, discriminatory, or prohibitory, and that in giving such consideration this case should overrule that case. However, the court in the Hess case points out in 69 Idaho at page 512, 210 P.2d at page 802, that such...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Jones v. State Bd. of Medicine
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • October 15, 1976
    ...the issues pertaining to due process and equal protection. See, Grayot v. Summers, 75 Idaho 125, 269 P.2d 765 (1954); Taggart v. Latah Co., 78 Idaho 99, 298 P.2d 979 (1956). In addition, respondents and intervenors assert that the restricted liability provisions of the Act are in violation ......
  • Nite Moves Entertainment, Inc. v. City of Boise
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Idaho
    • January 17, 2001
    ...County, 105 Idaho 209, 214, 668 P.2d 85 (1983); Voyles v. City of Nampa, 97 Idaho 597, 601, 548 P.2d 1217 (1976); Taggart v. Latah County, 78 Idaho 99, 102, 298 P.2d 979 (1956). For this reason, the Court finds that the City's ordinance is not expressly preempted by I.C. § Plaintiffs argue ......
  • Cincinnati v. Baskin
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • December 8, 2006
    ...(1975), 26 Ill.App.3d 27, 33, 324 N.E.2d 453; Charleston v. Jenkins (1963), 243 S.C. 205, 211-212, 133 S.E.2d 242; Taggart v. Latah Cty. (1956), 78 Idaho 99, 104, 298 P.2d 979. {¶ 39} This interpretation of "conflict" is also exemplified in other case law and secondary sources: "In matters ......
  • Kopp v. Baird, 8532
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • June 25, 1957
    ...the merits. The record discloses sufficient facts upon which to base a decision, thereby to obviate another appeal. In Taggart v. Latah County, Idaho, 298 P.2d 979, 980, this Court 'Although the trial court found the complaint did not state a cause of action, a justiciable issue is presente......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT