Court Opinion

ID: 9564545
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:02:50.898102+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:29.625464
License: Public Domain

COMPTON, Chief Justice (dissenting). The majority says that the question is whether appellant’s business, required to be licensed by the ordinance, was actually regulated, and they rely upon our. own cases, City of Albuquerque v. Ranger Desdemona Oil Co., 26 N.M. 434, 194 P. 589 and Tharp v. City of Clovis, 34 N.M. 161, 279 P. 69, 71, to reverse the judgment. The cases are readily distinguishable. In the former, the ordinance did not set out a single regulation and counsel agreed that the ordinance was a revenue measure. In such circumstance, what else was the court to do but invalidate the ordinance? The Tharp case, supra, while holding regulations could appear in another ordinance, held: “Basing our decision upon the police powers enumerated above, which the Legislature has granted to cities, * * * ■we hold that when treated as licensing or regulatory measures, and not as occupation taxes, the provisions of the ordinances at bar were valid.” (Emphasis ours.) Clearly, the ordinance in question was and had been treated as a licensing and regulatory measure and not as a revenue measure only, because it does license and regulate. Section 10 makes it unlawful to engage in the business in question without a license. Section 12 authorizes the city to refuse a license whenever it is deemed to be to the best interest of the public. Section 13 provides that the city may revoke the license for certain offenses when the public welfare requires it. Section 16 provides for penalties. Section 20 provides for a lien and its foreclosure. I pose two questions which I believe point up what I believe to be the fallacy of the majority opinion; first, do such provisions have a place in a revenue measure, and second, if the ordinance should have contained further regulations, how much and what? The appellant did not tell us, nor does the majority opinion say. The foregoing regulations suffice to illustrate that the ordinance is essentially a regulatory and not a revenue measure. The majority having concluded otherwise, I respectfully dissent. CHAVEZ, J., concurs.