Court Opinion

ID: 9792338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:27:28.365782+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:42.091782
License: Public Domain

*1234SULLIVAN, J.
I concur in part and dissent in part.
I agree that the Department properly held that the licensee violated the minimum retail price maintenance provisions of Business and Professions Code section 24755. But I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the purported prohibition in Business and Professions Code section 24755.1 against license suspension or revocation is constitutional and properly qualified the power conferred upon the Department by article XX, section 22 of the Constitution to license, arid to deny, suspend or revoke any specific license. Accordingly, I dissent from the majority’s holding that section 24755.1 prevents suspension of the licensee’s license in the instant case and that the Department improperly ordered suspension of such license.
For the reasons stated in my concurring and dissenting opinion in Kirby v. Alcoholic Bev. etc. Appeals Bd., ante, page 1200 [81 Cal.Rptr. 241, 459 P.2d 657], it is my opinion that the prohibition in section 24755.1 against license suspension or revocation is unconstitutional because it limits and impairs the constitutional power to suspend or revoke licenses granted the Department by the second sentence of the fifth paragraph of section 22 of article XX. I further conclude that since the provisions of section 24755.1 are clearly in-severable, the entire section is inoperative. The licensee’s argument that the section has vitality here must therefore fall.
I would affirm the decision of the Department.
Tobfiner, J., concurred.
Respondent’s petition for a rehearing was denied November 19, 1969. Tobriner, J., and Sullivan, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be. granted.