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 nearly 2,700 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 with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Access to this content requires a subscription. Please visit the following page to request a quote or trial:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?