751 S.E.2d 671
Va. Ct. App.2013Background
- She-Sha Café and Hookah Lounge in Blacksburg is a retail tobacco store and restaurant.
- Tobacco sales accounted for about two-thirds of She-Sha’s revenue (Dec 2009–Feb 2010).
- Virginia Department of Health cited She-Sha for VICAA violations (no-smoking signs, smoking in non-smoking areas).
- Department concluded She-Sha was a restaurant subject to VICAA regulations; She-Sha disputed exemption.
- On rehearing en banc, the court held She-Sha is exempt from VICAA as a retail tobacco store.
- Court reversed the circuit court and remanded for entry of an order consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether VICAA’s retail tobacco store exemption applies to a business also operating as a restaurant. | She-Sha is a retail tobacco store; broad exemption applies. | VICAA exemptions do not preclude regulation of restaurants that sell food; hybrid status irrelevant. | Yes; She-Sha exempt as a retail tobacco store. |
| How to harmonize Code §§ 15.2-2821 and 15.2-2825 between exemptions and restaurant smoking ban. | Exemption in 15.2-2821 bars VICAA regulation of retail tobacco stores. | Restaurant smoking ban in 15.2-2825 governs; exemptions narrow. | Exemption controls; VICAA does not regulate a retail tobacco store that is not exclusively a restaurant. |
| What is the proper standard of review for statutory interpretation in this VICAA dispute. | Defer to agency on interpretive questions. | Statutory interpretation is a judicial function; de novo review. | De novo review; court interprets statutes to honor legislative intent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Logan v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 168 (Va. App. 2005) (en banc discussion cited; respect agency discretion in fact-finding)
- Avante at Roanoke v. Finnerty, 56 Va. App. 190 (Va. App. 2010) (standard of review and evidentiary support)
- Wright v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 754 (Va. 2009) (statutory interpretation requires plain meaning unless ambiguous)
- City of Virginia Beach v. ESG Enters., 243 Va. 149 (Va. 1992) (interpretation of statutory language; legislative intent)
- Hulcher v. Commonwealth, 39 Va. App. 601 (Va. App. 2003) (harmonizing related statutes; whole-act interpretation)
- Ainslie v. Inman, 265 Va. 347 (Va. 2003) (read statutes together to effect legislative intent)
- Moreno v. Moreno, 24 Va. App. 190 (Va. App. 1997) (interpretation of statutes as a whole)