Court Opinion

ID: 9646415
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 12:59:27.77251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:37.961163
License: Public Domain

DUFFY, Justice
(dissenting):
I regret that I cannot agree with the construction which a majority of the Court applies to 4 Del.C. § 543(d) and, respectfully, I must dissent from the ruling.
The statute provides in part as follows:
“The Commission shall refuse to grant a license for the sale of alcoholic liquor by any restaurant, tavern, taproom, hotel, store, or other establishment for consumption on or off the premises, when there is an existing licensed establishment of the same type within 1200 feet by accessible public road or street in any incorporated city or town, or within 1 mile by accessible public road or street in any unincorporated or rural area; provided, however, that if there is an existing licensed establishment less than 1 mile but more than nine tenths of 1 mile by accessible public road or street in any unincorporated or rural area, the Commission may, in its discretion, grant such license; . . . .”
By its terms, § 543(d) establishes a “distance limitation” test1 and bars issuance of a license which would violate the stated criteria. Specifically, the Commission is prohibited from issuing a license for the sale of alcoholic liquors “by any . store, or other establishment for consumption on or off the premises, when there is *1128an existing licensed establishment of the same type” within one road mile. It is undisputed that, in this case, there is an establishment with an “on-off” license located only a half mile from the place where the Commission has decided to authorize operation of a new store for off-premises sale. If the “on-off” facility is an “existing” establishment “of the same type” as the new store, clearly the statute prohibits the Commission from issuing the new license. That is the critical question in the appeal and construction of the statute is required to answer it.
. To begin, it seems to me that the word “establishment” in § 543(d) is of little aid in ascertaining meaning. The word is defined in generic terms in 4 Del.C. § 101(13),2 the definition section, and appears to be a catchall designed to cover any type of facility where alcoholic liquor is sold, on or off premises, not covered by the prior listing in § 543(d), i. e., a restaurant, tavern, taproom, hotel or store.
The key language in § 543(d) is, of course, the phrase “of the same type.” This is to say that if there is an existing licensed tavern, for example, then another tavern may not be licensed within the mile distance. The Legislative purpose is plainly, I think, to prevent saturation of an area with the same kind of outlets and, to achieve, that goal, the General Assembly adopted the arbitrary distance test.
What, then, about an on-off license? In effect, this is a double license which permits the holder thereof to purchase and resell alcoholic liquor for consumption both on and off the premises where sold. See 4 Del.C. § 511. The dual nature of the license is emphasized by a provision in § 511 which states that,
“[i]f a licensee holds an on premises license and an off premises license, voluntary relinquishment of 1 of the said licenses and the retention of the other license shall be permitted automatically by the Commission.”
I find nothing in the statute which makes any distinction between an “off-premises” license issued singly, and an “off-premises” license issued in combination with an “on-premises” license. There may, of course, be differences in the way in which license holders conduct their respective establishments. Thus, one licensee holding both on and off privileges may sell alcoholic liquor for consumption off premises from the same bar at which alcoholic liquor for on-premises consumption is sold; another licensee holding both on and off privileges may sell alcoholic liquor for consumption off premises from a separate retail-type of package store with a separate entrance. The choice is that of the licensee. But his choice cannot or, at least, should not control construction of § 543(d). Surely the statutory meaning of “existing licensed establishment of the same type” does not depend on how a specific licensee manages his operation.
If the Commission is not satisfied with the way in which the holder of a double license is serving the public who come to buy at the “store” (by selling to such customers only across a bar, for example), certainly the Commission has ample powers, 4 Del. C. § 561(b)(ll), with which to adjust this situation — at the time of annual renewal of the license, for example. See 4 Del.C. § 552.
The construction given § 543(d) by the majority means that two establishments, each with a license to sell alcoholic beverage for off-premises consumption will be located within one-half mile of each other.3 That, I believe, is prohibited by § 543(d).
* * * * * *
*1129I would affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

. There are exceptions not pertinent to this appeal.

. 4 Del.C. § 101(13) provides:
“ ‘Establishment’ means any place where alcoholic liquor of one or more varieties is stored, sold or used by authority of any law of this State, including a hotel, restaurant, tavern or club as defined in this section, or where alcoholic liquor of one or more varieties is manufactured by virtue of any law of this State.”

. The majority concludes its decision on this issue by saying that the “existing license within the statutorily prohibited area was a taproom, and not a retail package store.” With all defer*1129ence, I suggest that this is not correct. The very nature of the existing on-off license permits both taproom and retail package store sales.