About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

7 Idaho L. Rev. 131 (1970)
Liquor Control: Municipal Ordinances - Constitutionality vs. Police Power

handle is hein.journals/idlr7 and id is 137 raw text is: Liquor Control: Municipal Ordinances- Constitutionality vs. Police Power The Village of Weippe was incorporated December 1, 1964 and immediately enacted various ordinances necessary to municipal operation. On January 13, 1965 the plaintiff made application for a beer license. Subsequent to plaintiff's application, owners of two other premises in the village applied for and received beer licenses during January. Plaintiff's application was denied February 4, 1965. An ordinance limiting the number of beer licenses within the vil- lage was passed February 26, 1965 and this ordinance was used in the statutorily required letter of denial mailed May 5, 1965.1 Plaintiff brought this action to have declared invalid the ordinance limiting the number of beer licenses. On defendant's appeal from the district court determination that the ordinance was unconstitu- tional and void in its application to the plaintiff as a deprivation of property without due process of law and as an unreasonable exercise of police power, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed. Win- ther v. Village of Weippe, 91 Idaho 798, 430 P.2d 689 (1967) .' Government control over intoxicating liquors has long been recognized as a necessary function to protect society from the evils attending it. Protection of society and not the providing of a benefit on the license holder is the chief end of such laws and regulations. There is no inherent right in a citizen to sell intoxicating liquors at retail. It is a business attended with danger to the community and it is recognized everywhere as a subject of regulation. The Twenty-first amendment to the Constitution of the United States makes the transportation into any state for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquor subject to the laws of such state. As to the legislative power to regulate liquor, the United States Supreme Court has stated, 'The letter of formal denial was dated May 5, 1965, from the chairman of the board of trustees of the village to the plaintiff. . .. (Y) our applica- tion must be denied for the following reasons: (1) The premises to be licensed do not meet minimum health and safety requirements; (2) There has not been a beer license issued by Clearwater County, Idaho for the premises for which your application for a village license was made; (3) Ordinance No. 8 of the Ordinances of the Village of Weippe provides that there shall be issued no more than two (2) licenses for the sale of beer within the village and there are presently two licenses issued. 'The case presented two issues, (1) a procedural issue involving declaratory judgment and jurisdiction; (2) refusal of a newly incorporated municipality to issue a beer license. Only the license issue is treated here. 'Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U.S. 86 (1890); Mix v. Board of Commissioners, 18 Idaho 695, 112 P. 215 (1910); Roberts v. City of Boise, 23 Idaho 716, 132 P. 306 (1913); McQuILUN, THE LAW OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, 3rd Ed. (1964), Vol. 9 § 26.186.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most