Randles v. State Liquor Control Bd.

32 Citing cases

  1. Fritz v. Gorton

    83 Wn. 2d 275 (Wash. 1974)   Cited 88 times
    Holding this to be a basis for finding the citizen's lawsuit provision of the Act constitutional

    In 1949, two cases were decided by the Washington Supreme Court wherein the constitutional limitation of article 2, section 19, was applied to legislation by initiative. Randles v. State Liquor Control Bd., 33 Wn.2d 688, 206 P.2d 1209, 9 A.L.R.2d 846 (1949), was an action to enjoin the enforcement of Initiative 171, which, along with amendatory and supplemental legislation, was known as the Washington state liquor act. The court determined that the ballot title and legislative title of the initiative were not defective.

  2. Ass'n of Wash. Spirits & Wine Distribs. v. Wash. State Liquor Control Bd.

    182 Wn. 2d 342 (Wash. 2015)   Cited 73 times
    Concluding the right to sell and distribute spirits is not a fundamental right of state citizenship because it is granted only at the discretion of the legislature under its police power

    ¶ 43 The ability to sell and distribute spirits does not implicate a “privilege” under article I, section 12. This court has explicitly recognized the distinction between privileges and rights granted only at the discretion of the legislature when considering claims of disparate treatment of businesses. See Randles v. Wash. State Liquor Control Bd., 33 Wash.2d 688, 694, 206 P.2d 1209 (1949) (“the distinction between a lawful business which a citizen has the right to engage in and one in which he may engage only as a matter of grace of the state” must be considered). Here, the only right asserted is the right to sell liquor under the authority of a license issued pursuant to the State's police power.

  3. Freeman v. Hittle

    747 F.2d 1299 (9th Cir. 1984)   Cited 15 times
    Concluding that "if neither party is prejudiced, a [Rule] 54(b) certification is sufficient to validate a premature notice of appeal"

    The Washington Supreme Court has held that "[t]here is no natural or constitutional right to sell or engage in the business of selling or dispensing intoxicating liquor." Randles v. Washington State Liquor Control Board, 33 Wn.2d 688, 206 P.2d 1209, 1213 (1949). Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 91 S.Ct. 507, 27 L.Ed.2d 515 (1971), and Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976), cited by Freeman, do not apply to the facts of this case.

  4. Women's Liberation Union of Rhode Island v. Israel

    379 F. Supp. 44 (D.R.I. 1974)   Cited 17 times

    In fact most courts prior to 1950 found that statutes which forbade the sale of liquor to women in certain establishments, the employment of females in some businesses dispensing liquor, or even the presence of women in such places were constitutional as a reasonable exercise of the state's police power to protect the public safety, welfare and morals. E.g., Randles v. Washington State Liquor Control Board, 33 Wn.2d 688, 206 P.2d 1209 (1949); Great Atlantic and P. Tea Co. v. Danville, 367 Ill. 310, 11 N.E.2d 388, 113 A.L.R. 1386 (1937); Laughlin v. Tillamook County, 75 Or. 506, 147 P. 547 (1915); People v. Case, 153 Mich. 98, 116 N.W. 558, 18 L.R.A., N.S., 657 (1908); Hoboken v. Greiner, 68 N.J.L. 592, 53 A. 693 (1902). I recognize these decisions.

  5. United States v. Anderson

    109 F. Supp. 755 (E.D. Wash. 1953)   Cited 2 times

    The full title to chapter 88 is as follows: "An Act relating to the appropriation of waters of the State for irrigation purposes, granting to the United States the right to exercise the power of eminent domain in acquiring lands, water and other property for rights of way, and for reservoirs and other irrigation works, granting to the United States certain rights in State lands and in the waters of the State, relating to water users' associations, and declaring an emergency." State ex rel. Zent v. Nichols, 50 Wn. 508, 97 P. 728; Shea v. Olson, 185 Wn. 143, 53 P.2d 615, 111 A.L.R. 998; De Cano v. State, 7 Wn.2d 613, 110 P.2d 627; State ex rel. Washington Toll Bridge Authority v. Yelle, 32 Wn.2d 13, 200 P.2d 467; Randles v. State Liquor Control Board, 33 Wn.2d 688, 206 P.2d 1209, 9 A.L.R.2d 531. It is our conclusion that the United States has a right-of-way for irrigation canal purposes, granted to it by statute over tracts 4, 6, and 8 of the defendants.

  6. Martinez-Cuevas v. DeRuyter Bros. Dairy

    196 Wash. 2d 506 (Wash. 2020)   Cited 27 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Martinez-Cuevas, the Supreme Court held that the statutory right to exempt dairy workers from overtime pay constituted an impermissible privilege or immunity granted to agricultural employers.

    See Ass'n of Wash. Spirits , 182 Wash.2d 342, 340 P.3d 849 (" ‘[T]he distinction between a lawful business which a citizen has the right to engage in and one in which he may engage only as a matter of grace of the state’ must be considered." (quoting Randles v. Wash. State Liquor Control Bd. , 33 Wash.2d 688, 694, 206 P.2d 1209 (1949) )). So, for purposes of article I, section 12 ’s analysis, even acknowledging the general right to pursue a common calling and, as a corollary, the fundamental right to work and earn a wage, statutorily exempted workers do not enjoy a fundamental right to overtime pay.

  7. Hi-Starr, Inc. v. Liquor Control Bd.

    106 Wn. 2d 455 (Wash. 1986)   Cited 28 times
    In Hi-Starr, Inc., the court affirmed the administrative revocation of Hi Starr's class H liquor license because Hi Starr did not report sufficient gross food sales.

    Washington State voters passed Initiative 171 on November 2, 1948, creating the class H "liquor by the drink" license. Randles v. State Liquor Control Bd., 33 Wn.2d 688, 206 P.2d 1209, 9 A.L.R.2d 531 (1949) upheld the constitutionality of Initiative 171 stating at page 694: There is no natural or constitutional right to sell or engage in the business of selling or dispensing intoxicating liquor.

  8. Houser v. State

    85 Wn. 2d 803 (Wash. 1975)   Cited 15 times

    We agree. [1] Certainly the "strict scrutiny" applicable to suspect classifications and those which burden fundamental rights would not be appropriate here: age discriminations are not inherently "suspect" ( Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 295 n. 14, 27 L.Ed.2d 272, 91 S.Ct. 260 (1970) (Stewart, J., concurring); United States v. Duncan, 456 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir. 1972), and the "right" to consume alcohol is far from "fundamental" ( Randles v. State Liquor Control Bd., 33 Wn.2d 688, 694, 206 P.2d 1209, 9 A.L.R.2d 846 (1949). The criminal penalties that drinking laws carry impact on the right to be free from imprisonment and would, in other contexts, make them subject to some more demanding scrutiny than "minimum rationality" review.

  9. State v. Cantrell

    496 P.2d 276 (Idaho 1972)   Cited 19 times
    In State v. Cantrell, 94 Idaho 653, 496 P.2d 276 (1972), this court recognized that although the regulation of retail liquor outlets was for a legitimate stated public purpose, the regulatory classifications of the licensing act must nevertheless reasonably relate to the accomplishment of that purpose.

    When applied to defendants who raise constitutional defenses to criminal prosecutions, the rule requires simply that the constitutional issues relate directly to the particular statutory provisions upon which the prosecutions are based. That requirement is satisfied in each of the present cases. Randles v. Washington State Liquor Control Bd., 33 Wn.2d 688, 206 P.2d 1209, 9 A.L.R.2d 531 (1949).E.g., Poffenroth v. Culinary Workers Union Local No. 328, 71 Idaho 412, 232 P.2d 968 (1951).

  10. American Federation of Teachers v. Yakima School District No. 7

    74 Wn. 2d 865 (Wash. 1968)   Cited 9 times

    The plaintiffs argue that the title of the Act does not refer to elections and that it therefore gives no notice of the fact that the Act deals with that subject. In Randles v. State Liquor Control Bd., 33 Wn.2d 688, 695, 206 P.2d 1209, 9 A.L.R.2d 531 (1949), we said: All incidentals germane to a title may be brought within the legislation although not specifically referred to in such title.