Town of Hilton Head Island v. Fine Liquors, Ltd., No. 23286

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtHARWELL; GREGORY
Citation302 S.C. 550,397 S.E.2d 662
PartiesThe TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND, South Carolina, Respondent, v. FINE LIQUORS, LTD., and The State of S.C. Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission, Defendants, of which Fine Liquors, Ltd. is Appellant. . Heard
Decision Date26 September 1990
Docket NumberNo. 23286

Page 662

397 S.E.2d 662
302 S.C. 550
The TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND, South Carolina, Respondent,
v.
FINE LIQUORS, LTD., and The State of S.C. Alcoholic Beverage
Control Commission, Defendants,
of which Fine Liquors, Ltd. is Appellant.
No. 23286.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard Sept. 26, 1990.
Decided Oct. 22, 1990.

Page 663

[302 S.C. 551] James H. Moss and H. Fred Kuhn, Jr., of Moss, Dore, Kuhn and McIntyre, Beaufort, for appellant.

Frank L. Valenta, of ABC Com'n General Counsel, Columbia, and Curtis L. Coltrane, of Gray, Griffis, Wilson and Coltrane, Hilton Head Island, for respondent.

[302 S.C. 552] HARWELL, Justice:

Appellant Fine Liquors appeals from the master-in-equity's decision upholding the validity of a Town of Hilton Head (Town) ordinance which prohibits the use of internally illuminated signs which are visible from any public right of way or beach. The issues involved are: whether the ordinance conflicts with statutory provisions; whether the ordinance was a reasonable exercise of the Town's police power; and whether the ordinance is constitutional under the equal protection clause. We affirm the order of the master-in-equity.

The Town seeks to enjoin Fine Liquors from using four internally lit "red dot" signs at its business in violation of a Town ordinance. The ordinance prohibits internally illuminated signs which are visible from any public right of way or beach. Code of the Town of Hilton Head, § 16-7-1015(25) (1983). Fine Liquors contends that the ordinance conflicts with two statutory provisions.

Fine Liquors first argues that the ordinance conflicts with S.C.Code Ann. § 61-5-190 (1990), which provides in part, that the "South Carolina Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission is the sole and exclusive authority empowered to regulate the operation of all retail locations authorized to sell beer, wine, or alcoholic beverages." Fine Liquors contends that this exclusive grant of authority to the ABC Commission to regulate the operation of liquor stores demonstrates that the legislature intended to pre-empt the field, thereby precluding municipalities from passing any ordinance affecting the operation of liquor stores. This contention is without merit.

We do not interpret the language of the statute as diminishing the power conferred upon local governments to regulate land use. The Town ordinance is a part of the Town of Hilton Head Island Land Management Ordinance and is thus clearly a land use ordinance. We agree with the other jurisdictions that have addressed this issue and have determined that in order to pre-empt an entire field, an act must make manifest a legislative intent that no other enactment may touch upon the subject in any way. See City of Virginia Beach v. Virginia Restaurant Assoc., Inc., 231 Va. 130, 341 S.E.2d 198 (1986) (provision of Alcoholic Beverage [302 S.C. 553] Control Act prohibiting ordinances regulating alcoholic beverages did not operate to prohibit city from imposing a tax on alcoholic beverages); City of Norfolk v. Tiny House, Inc., 222 Va. 414, 281 S.E.2d 836 (1981) (Alcoholic Beverage Control Act does not prevent local...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 practice notes
  • Martin v. Condon, No. 24518
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • November 14, 1995
    ...with any State law do not "set aside" any criminal laws enacted by the State. See Town of Hilton Head Island v. Fine Liquors, Ltd., 302 S.C. 550, 397 S.E.2d 662 (1990) (in order to preempt an entire field, an act must make manifest a legislative intent that no other enactment may touch upon......
  • Hospitality Ass'n of South Carolina, Inc. v. County of Charleston, No. 24346
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 21, 1994
    ...not be inconsistent with the Constitution and general law of this State. Id.; see also Town of Hilton Head Island v. Fine Liquors, Ltd., 302 S.C. 550, 397 S.E.2d 662 (1990) (recognizing the broad grant of power in § Although § 5-7-30 lists various specific powers possessed by municipalities......
  • Greenville County v. Kenwood Enterprises, No. 25584.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 27, 2003
    ...Inc. v. City of Myrtle Beach, 340 S.C. 87, 94, 530 S.E.2d 890, 893 (2000); accord Town of Hilton Head Island v. Fine Liquors, Ltd., 302 S.C. 550, 397 S.E.2d 662 (1990) In Fine Liquors, we held that while the Legislature gave the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission the sole and exclusive a......
  • State v. Miller, Appellate Case No. 2016-000862
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 9, 2018
    ...Police Department's policy conflicts with state law and is, therefore, void. See Town of Hilton Head Island v. Fine Liquors, Ltd. , 302 S.C. 550, 553, 397 S.E.2d 662, 664 (1990) ("[I]n order for there to be a conflict between a state statute and a municipal ordinance both must contain eithe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
28 cases
  • Martin v. Condon, No. 24518
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • November 14, 1995
    ...with any State law do not "set aside" any criminal laws enacted by the State. See Town of Hilton Head Island v. Fine Liquors, Ltd., 302 S.C. 550, 397 S.E.2d 662 (1990) (in order to preempt an entire field, an act must make manifest a legislative intent that no other enactment may touch upon......
  • Hospitality Ass'n of South Carolina, Inc. v. County of Charleston, No. 24346
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 21, 1994
    ...not be inconsistent with the Constitution and general law of this State. Id.; see also Town of Hilton Head Island v. Fine Liquors, Ltd., 302 S.C. 550, 397 S.E.2d 662 (1990) (recognizing the broad grant of power in § Although § 5-7-30 lists various specific powers possessed by municipalities......
  • Greenville County v. Kenwood Enterprises, No. 25584.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 27, 2003
    ...Inc. v. City of Myrtle Beach, 340 S.C. 87, 94, 530 S.E.2d 890, 893 (2000); accord Town of Hilton Head Island v. Fine Liquors, Ltd., 302 S.C. 550, 397 S.E.2d 662 (1990) In Fine Liquors, we held that while the Legislature gave the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission the sole and exclusive a......
  • State v. Miller, Appellate Case No. 2016-000862
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 9, 2018
    ...Police Department's policy conflicts with state law and is, therefore, void. See Town of Hilton Head Island v. Fine Liquors, Ltd. , 302 S.C. 550, 553, 397 S.E.2d 662, 664 (1990) ("[I]n order for there to be a conflict between a state statute and a municipal ordinance both must contain eithe......
  • 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