Court Opinion

ID: 9695251
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:13:40.451013+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:10.368634
License: Public Domain

SHEA, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I join in the conclusion of the majority that G.L.1956 (1976 Reenactment) § 5-23-1 through § 5-23-6, as amended by P.L.1976, ch. 169, § 1 does not deprive these defendants of equal protection of the law nor does it violate their rights of due process. However, I believe that the cross-appeals of the Outlet Co. and Jordan Marsh Co. from a denial of their motions to dismiss should be sustained.
Section 5 — 23-6(C) does not give the right to seek injunctive relief in the situation before the court because it mentions only violations of the statute, not license violations, and limits injunctive relief to situations in which the remedies of subsections (A) (improperly forcing an employee to work Sundays) and (B) (criminal penalties for violations of license provisions) are unavailable. I do not believe that this court should presume that the Legislature was in error in failing to include license violations when it listed the circumstances in which injunctive relief could be sought.
It has been my belief for some time that § 5-23-1 through § 5-23-6 does not prohibit Sunday sales but rather serves only as a licensing statute which provides an exemption from the prohibitions of G.L.1956 (1981 Reenactment) § 11-40-1. But the statute does not command that a retailer obtain a license, nor does it prohibit sales without a license. I would prefer that any omissions in this legislation be remedied by the Legislature, not by the court.