Court Opinion

ID: 9714807
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:46:06.743162+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:28.773594
License: Public Domain

WEISBERGER, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority solely because I believe that this result is mandated by Queensgate Investment Co. v. Liquor Control Commission, 69 Ohio St.2d 361, 433 N.E.2d 138, appeal dismissed, for want of a substantial federal question, 459 U.S. 807, 103 S.Ct. 31, 74 L.Ed.2d 45 (1982). In that case the Ohio Liquor Control Commission brought action against a liquor licensee who sought to declare unconstitutional as violative of the First Amendment an Ohio statute prohibiting liquor-pricing advertising in that state. In the case at bar, a retail alcoholic beverage dealer seeks to challenge the constitutionality of G.L.1956 (1976 Reenactment) § 3-8-7, which prohibits Rhode Island retail liquor licensees from advertising the price of alcoholic beverages. Consequently, an examination of the issues in this case discloses that they are substantially identical with the issue raised in Queensgate. In Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 95 S.Ct. 2281, 45 L.Ed.2d 223 (1975), the Supreme Court stated that such a dismissal constitutes a decision on the merits that is binding on both federal and state courts. See Loiselle v. City of East Providence, 116 R.I. 585, 588, 359 A.2d 345, 347 (1976). Therefore, although I cannot accept the rationale of the majority, I believe that the result reached was mandated by Queens-gate and consequently I concur in such result.