State v. Spartan's Industries, Inc.

knowledge that Loukes’ letter “with lished disregard of false reckless or with it was false not.”

whether Ap- judgment the Court of Civil

peals judgment is reversed

trial affirmed. court is Texas, Appellant,

The STATE of al., INDUSTRIES, INC. et

SPARTAN’S Appellees.

No. B-1255.

Supreme Court Texas.

Nov.

Judgment reversed and remand- cause

ed. Barlow, Atty., E. Dist. San James

Antonio, Casseb, Jr., Soloman Bruce Antonio, Robertson, Gilliland, San John Gen., Martin, provides appeals Atty. Monroe that direct Crawford ap- Gen., Austin, Atty. taken trial Clayton, Asst. from orders courts pellant. “granting interlocutory denying permanent injunction ground Bloch, Walton, H. Bloch William & constitutionality unconstitutionality of Ladon, Op- Christi, Cross, Corpus Lang, * * any Upon reading statute Stewart, penheimer Rosenberg, D. & James transcript full find that defendants’ we Christi, Antonio, Spitz, Corpus San Oscar only “plea for in ground their abatement” Burns, Kampmann, Kampmann, & Church unconstitutionality was the the statute. Antonio, Kampmann, George A. San unconstitutionality gives The trial court Fichtner, Fichtner, Jay Berman & S. n ofthe as judg- the reason its for Dallas, appellees. for Plaintiff, “that ment and decrees State Texas, in- nothing by its take suit for REAVLEY, junctive Justice. relief the Defendants ”* * * plea in treat the so-called We con- question in this case is the The and, plea as bar since abatement Saturday) stitutionality (or of the take-nothing judgment trial court’s could law, Ann. Article 286a. Vernon’s judgment, be the intended lan- uphold the statute. Texas Penal Code. We disregarded as guage dismissal by brought The suit was District meaningless. judgment When County, acting Attorney of in the Bexar permanent interpreted, it denied the thus State, enjoin name four of the discount injunction sought the State on County, Spartan operating stores Bexar unconstitutionality Ar- ground of the Industries, Antonio, Inc., Barker’s of San 286a, jurisdiction this ticle and court Inc., Antonio, Shoppers Inc. World of San appeal. direct Stores, Inc., and Globe with together employees, certain certain from compared be holding This to the one items of merchandise on the two consecu- Foundation, Touchy Legal v. Houston tive and in viola- (Tex.Sup.1968). 432 S.W.2d 690 at- of Article 286a. The defendants plea in filed a Touchy, the defendants constitutionality tacked the the statute standing of abatement based on lack of pleadings, extensive and the trial court suit, also plaintiffs maintain the and agreed arguments with their when the summary that judgment filed motion came on case for trial. No statement nothing. The trial court plaintiff take us, facts before and the briefs state that pleas and at the same time heard two evidence was heard trial no court. plea reciting that judgment rendered and cause sustained abatement was dismissed, reciting that further was

JURISDICTION was summary judgment motion ground of the granted. the asserted Since appeal has taken a State direct ground of Touchy proper plea in this the terms of Article court under abatement, ground with we dealt 1738a, Statutes. Vernon’s Ann.Texas Civil in dis- the trial court with the action of question faced. jurisdiction A be must could court If the trial missing the case. judgment It arises the trial because case, the merits not have reached Pleas in decrees “that of the said each summary ruling on its recitation hereby Abatement and the same regarded as had to judgment motion sustained, be and this cause hand, ” there In the case at meaningless. * ** hereby This same is dismissed we re- ground abatement and was no case, if not to disposition of the we were dis- as to abatement language gard recitation, not fit behind the look meaningless. requirement which missal as process due of law virtue corporate defendants first them pro vagueness uncertainty prohibit- argue 1 Article 286a Section damages “any per act, ed takes or busi- hibits consecutive sales compensation, property ness or son,” without this must be construed injunction that it of a nui- authorizes the persons and not to apply natural sance where there is nuisance fact is en no corporations. question Since right jury thus denies the trial tirely separate constitutional from issue, on that and that it denies them issue, we decline to consider unduly process by op- due prohibiting or ground jurisdic the limitation of our pressing a lawful in a manner business Halbouty v. Rail appeal. tion in a direct 417, which has reasonable relation Texas, Tex. no road Commission they Finally, health and welfare. (Tex.Sup.1962). 357 S.W.2d 364 original caption contend that the of the comply Act Legislature failed to by enacted the 286a was Article III, with Article the Texas Section 35 of 4a Legislature Section in 1961. Constitution. the permitted originally statute as enacted prohibited commodities sale of otherwise upheld against The statute has been certified the seller purchaser when the in of civil similar attack the courts two of item an emer that the was his need of appeals Spartan in In opinions: three this section gency. The construction dustries, State, Inc. v. 379 S.W.2d to this court brought the statute writ); Hill (Tex.Civ.App.1964,no v. Gib Tex., World, Inc., Shoppers State Center, (Tex. son 437 S.W.2d 289 Discount there was question The S.W.2d 107. Civ.App.1968, e.); writ ref. n. r. State pur rely the whether the seller could Sundaco, Inc., (Tex.Civ. 445 S.W.2d certificate, the stat or whether chaser’s App., e.). n. writ ref. r. in the required ute that there no emergency. The absence an actual EFFECT AND OBJECTIVES it upheld construing 4a Sec. THE STATUTE OF determination require objective an case argues The seller. State specific Before constitutional weighing already de us that'this court before appeals against precedents, we should of Article the constitutionality termined has done Legislature understand what the opinion makes entirety, in its but 286a may by its enactment Article 286a. We 4a was quite plain that the attack Sec. it this as well decide at the outset whether issue considered. only constitutional relation enactment has reasonable certifi had defendant there obtained ar- Legislature public welfare. Has the and, law as the purchasers cates its from the merchants bitrarily interfered with court, there had been by this was construed Texas, proper ob- it or can be said appeals civil The court of no violation. jective law? Whether is served this properly State had ruled exercise of legitimate statute is a no there was injunction, entitled to most is central to police power the state further. to rule for this court cause now before us. questions 4a from removed Sec. is set of Article 286a The full text Article this opin- following this appendix in the forth 5a provides specifically in Sec. ion. I, and 19 Citing Article Sections closing laws Constitution, older Article of the Texas 287, Texas repealed. Articles 286 Constitution, ap- not of the United States XIV sales, Code, prohibit still Penal discrimi- that Article 286a pellees contend business, by equal opening place them them and denies nates certain (subject and trader denies merchant immunity, protection

4H stores, hotels, commodities, injunc- res- broad list of exceptions drug process, provision taurants, penalty for violation Sec. etc.). The n oí applies only than Article a fine not less to those “en- 286 is gaged in fifty twenty than dollars. business of nor more given The merchant is a choice item[s].” list of long Article 286a enumerates a Saturday Sunday, between but who vehicles, clothing articles from to motor Saturday will except choose close on choice gives the business man the plead Sabbatarian? Defendants that this trading on either attempt prevent suit is an them “from provides days, that if but he sells on both remaining open Sundays.” Surely subjected injunction he or Saturday is far still the better for sales greater penal penalty. Sunday. than is weigh the full effect of Article To important The most feature Article prohibits 286a must decide we whether effect, in practical 4 which Sec. the sale person same of one more an injunction authorizes enforce the named articles on when dif prohibition statute. Without articles, ferent but ones named provision, the sanction 286 is statute, preceding sold were Satur fine of more than That sanction no $50. (cid:127) Thus, day. off his could merchant close not effective for the considerations of appliance department Saturday and then on large busy prosecutors. De- businesses and operate Sunday nothing his on with but injunction plead fendants that this is an appliance department open? We construe attempt remaining prevent them “from to prohibit says that statute to this. open Sundays.” Indeed, on that is the days shall person who sells on both effect intent of the statute and the of guilty sells of a misdemeanor. Who injunction Article suit. Without 286a clothing clothing; what? sells “any Who Sunday sale of all these commodities of etc., accessories; apparel;” mean wearing 286, prohibited by would be Article ing “any” that if named item is on one sold the defendants would be in violation of day, illegal it item “any” to sell named law in the ac- engage were then to they say day. on not the other The statute does they protect appeal tivities which would the merchant that cloth to he sell Apparently they Constitution. accessories, ing, or sell or sell clothing prohibitions seriously troubled days. The wearing apparel on consecutive injunctive the law absence of the of separating effect of each article between process. applying prohibi semicolons Sunday have been attacked closing laws only day consecutive sales courts, vigorously, out of both article, Leg separate have the would discriminating persons whose permit islature a merchant to sell watches requires of rest religion them to take Saturday Sunday, blinds on and clocks on on some week other than Sun- draperies Saturday on and curtains on day. Maryland, 366 U.S. McGowan radios on washing machines and 512, 420, 1101, 1153, 6 L.Ed.2d 81 S.Ct. Saturday and and television sets driers 393, Brown, 448; Braunfeld v. 366 U.S. plan Sunday. be a This would nonsensical 563; 1144, Mann 81 L.Ed.2d 6 S.Ct. Legislature. ascribe Garfinkel, Laws Sunday Closing The Dame Critique,

To 37 Notre judge the reasonableness Decisions—A Barron, Sunday in statute, Lawyer the face (1962); we have us before America, appears evidence, (1965). the statute with no but North 79 Harv.L.Rev. By provision in to close Texas principal plan there that if Sunday department long permitted one labor mercantile establishments day of rest Sunday. actually he observes another This is reason stores religious purposes. modities, The choice exactly which were almost for the sale the ar- same as those in Article named The 286a. ticles enumerated in the current statute U. S. Court had District found that sub should, least, at objections remove stantial surburban retail businesses had grounds religion made the Sabbatar- triggered large scale violations of the ians. Pennsylvania general law, Sunday closing and that the small fine of the older law Since the basis constitutionality inadequate “was Sunday open to deter the Sunday closing laws has been often said ing large retail establishments be the single day achievement of a of rest could easily small fines as an absorb such for all the family, and for the bulk of the doing incidental busi profitable cost community, it op is understandable that Moreover, types ness. appeared ponents argue purpose by this new enact of commodities covered by allowing breached merchants a choice principal ment categories merchan days. between question When the two dise sold in establishments which these came Supreme before the Court of Mich retail problem made the igan in Department Stores, Arlan’s Inc. Supreme Court acute.” newly Kelley, 374 Mich. N.W.2d power held it was within the (1964), three justices found this feature legislature state have concluded fatal justices up the statute and three disrupt particularly these businesses were respect. Supreme held it in this Court ing and that of the law was their violation Stores, of Minnesota in Target State v. dimension, requiring a dif of a different Inc., 447, 156 (1968), 279 Minn. N.W.2d Frankfurter, remedy. ferent Mr. Justice here, found no constitutional defect but upholds concurring opinion, his legislative attempt “a to alleviate “it area singles statute because out religious upon indirect burden Sabbatar- evi danger where a made most has been ians.” dent, treats busi that area all and within doing enterprises equally. ness That in so objective The of one a week line between have drawn the surcease from commerce is this by served cover, hun by punished sale of a sofa a statute. That surcease has never been fine, an auto the sale dred-dollar unanimous, exceptions always for al cover, punished by a four dollar mobile seat lowed. The was entitled to legisla fine, void the is not sufficient expect that yield Article 286a would Sun 1197, 541, 6 L.Ed. tion.” 366 81 S.Ct. U.S. day operations only by Sabbatarians 2d 465. perhaps storekeeper. an occasional small Carolina North Supreme The Court of EQUAL PROTECTION forbade which upheld an ordinance very simi- commodities of enumerated argue Defendants that are the they 286a, “It is saying: Article lar to those of discrimination, victims of denied and are require practical to reasonable both equal protection law, because the shopping for people to their serious do penalty statute raises the and threatens an furniture, automobiles, household clothing, .injunction only against those who are in hardware, and build- appliances, and office particularly the business of enu weekdays.” Charles ing supplies on argument merated articles. This same Tucker, 263 N.C. Company, Inc. v. Stores Guys put forward answered Two 710, (1965). 140 S.E.2d 370 Harrison-Allentown, From Inc. v. McGin 1135, ley, 589, 582, 366 U.S. 6 invalidated 81 S.Ct. on occasion Courts have 551, Pennsylvania doing L.Ed.2d stat as the of' this nature statutes briefs, higher hold- imposed ute under a in their consideration have done defendants of a penalty up prohibition against named com- the sale ing for sale of 413 However, virtually all of these terms of such the absence as camera understood words which will be film common camera the sale prohibition against question- marginal If a merchant. showing distinc- for a calling applica- posed for the able case could be rest or the related to tion “hardware,” example, the word However, majority the clear welfare. vitiating an ground for be no at- against such uphold statutes the cases United States scheme, legislative entire enactment. statutory long as the tack so 1, 1538, Petrillo, 91 332 U.S. 67 S.Ct. v. and so whole, valid one viewed as George, (1947); v. De L.Ed. 1877 alike with- all merchants long as treats Jordan 223, 703, 95 L.Ed. 886 341 71 S.Ct. U.S. competitors. discriminating among out (1951). automobiles, to sell If one allowed no regarded as is not example, the law Sunday closing types Various Validity of Dis-

discriminatory. Anno.: many years many have states laws Dif- Law Between crimination very prohibited sales the use of words Commodities, ferent Kinds of Stores or They used in Article similar to those 286a. 57 A.L.R.2d 975. attack for upheld against been Mann, (Tex. Watts v. S.W.2d Company, Inc. vagueness. Charles Stores had the court Civ.App.1945, ref’d), writ 710, Tucker, 140 S.E.2d 370 263 N.C. v. constitutionality Article it the before Solomon, (1965); 245 S.C. State 4646b, Ann.Civ.St., au Vernon’s (1965); A.L.R.3d 1277 S.E.2d injunction against one who thorized McQueen, Eagleton ex State rel. period made usurious loans within three Guys (Mo.Sup.Ct.1964); Two S.W.2d 449 argued of six months. was there Harrison-Allentown, Inc. v. Mc From usurers the law discriminated in favor of 1135; Ginley, 6 L.Ed. 81 S.Ct. U.S. held The court who made fewer loans. 551; Validity Sunday Law 2d Anno.: entirely proper Legis for the it was by Vagueness, as Affected Ordinance more serious threat to lature to treat the 91 A.L.R.2d 763. differently casual law from the viola plead that the pointed tion. It was out POLICE POWER showed ing of the lenders themselves prior usury ineffective also contend laws were The defendants their with operations by interfering lenders and those property with injunction business, law was essential. lawful takes hand, where a nuisance compensation, can of the case at declares

same be said out none, them of deprives to plead public that the wants and defendants where there process of law. buy be due property from them on and will without the if are without merit if the court does not interfere. These contentions served police is a valid exercise statute does state. The Constitution power of the VAGUENESS paid for require compensation that say pro defendants that the po the by the exercise loss occasioned hibited set forth in terms commodities are Richards, Tex. power. lice State v. vague so and to render the indefinite as (1957). 166, 301 S.W.2d statute unconstitutional. Constitutional true that the It is process requires prohibition

due the something to be may validly declare penal must be understandable statute fact, but is not so De nuisance which person intelligence. to a of common upon question whether descriptions depends argue that fendants endan be a nuisance is declared to are so uncer which commodities this statute health, safety, public public public gers to com tain that the merchant who wants welfare, public morals. offends the to do so. or ply the law cannot know how with Holding Tex. Article 286a to be 505, 129 S.W. constitutional Hughes, Ex Parte it, Supreme upon held here against attacks made Court we (1939), 2d 270 of the trial injunction granted judgment could be reverse that no usury, remand stop collecting from and the cause to that court for the relator then further proceedings. the state did not since laws of nuisance, usury either define private. Legislature then enacted

or CALVERT, J.,C. and SMITH and lending special statute usurious GREENHILL, JJ., dissent. injunction for its provided for an statutory injunction was enforcement. The APPENDIX Mann, upheld in Watts v. 187 S.W.2d Article Texas Penal (Acts Code ref’d). If (Tex.Civ.App.1945, writ C.S., 1961, 15, p. 38, 57th Leg., 1st ch. eff. au prohibit act, may Legislature may 7, Nov. 1961. As amended Acts injunction against thorize an act. Leg., p. 79, Aug. 28, 60th ch. eff. § 1967). brought back Thus we police power of question (Caption) prohibit An Act sale or state, upon question of which turns sale, offer of (2) con- both the two relation a reasonable be whether there is days secutive health, recre tween Article 286a forcing, the compelling, obliging of people ation and welfare employees ; items sell certain named the courts function of state. not the providing exemptions; declaring violation en judge legislative wisdom of authorizing per- be a nuisance arbi statute when a actment. It is apply injunctions sons to and obtain re- activi trarily legitimate interferes with Act; straining de- violations of this rea no in such as to have ties a manner claring an emergency. welfare, general

sonable relation to be that this court rule the statute Any person, Section the two both grounds with which unconstitutional on (2) Saturday and consecutive Sun- long here concerned. With we day, who or shall sells or offers constitutionality of Sun precedent for the compel, oblige employees force his State, with day closing in this laws accessories; clothing; sell clothing as set the view we take of footware; headwear; wearing apparel; above, validly re to be forth we hold home, business, furni- office or outdoor and welfare lated to recreation utensils; ture; kitchenware; kitchen people. china; stoves; re- appliances; home ; conditioners; frigerators air electric CAPTION fans; sets; washing radios; television machines; hardware; driers; cameras; say Defendants Constitution, tools, non-power III, driven hand excluding the Texas Sec. tools; jewelry; semi-precious requires subject precious an Act that the stones; clocks; watches; lug- title, silverware; expressed in its violated vehicles; ; gage motor instru- of for this reason: musical caption Article 286a ments; toys, caption says subject recordings; excluding of items souvenirs; customarily prescribe list items which sold as novelties and Act is to one of mattresses; household coverings; another may on bed not sold linens; draperies; may coverings; lamps; on floor items be sold list of not mirrors; blinds; curtains; Sunday. unlikely an construction lawn mowers This is piece caption. caption goods guilty cloth shall be need or Act; separate shall subject of the Each sale general misdemeanor. state separate a explain constitute not the details. offense. need premise from the apply incontrovertible that the Nothing herein shall Sec. not, or purposes people statute is as most are inclined any charitable sale or sales for think, even, pur- “Sunday law”, closing burial a or items used for funeral or in part majority a or as the this court has char- poses to items sold as of of it, property. “Sunday (or Saturday) acterized conjunction sale of real with the Rather, closing as law”. will be demon- For first offense under this Sec. 3. strated, “Sunday opening it is a law”. Act, by punishment shall be fine Any Hundred Dollars suggestion not more than One that Art. 286a is a “Sun- law”, upon “Sunday the trial ($100.00). day closing (or If it shown or a Satur- law”, involving ig- this day) closing case violation of either overlooks by Act that once before defendant has been nores the fact the stat- that, virtue of offense, shall provisions, convicted of the same he in ute’s stores which forty-six his second conviction and on all subse- categories items merchan- quent by punished im- convictions be 1 are offered dise listed section sold or prisonment jail exceeding (6) not may open engage six business by months or a fine than Sunday of not more under sanction of law for ($500.00), Five Hundred Dollars or both. time in one years! first hundred More- over, before the enactment of Art. purpose being Sec. 4. The of this Act opening operation of such stores and promote recreation and wel- the sale the listed merchandise on Sun- state, fare people oper- of this absolutely prohibited by Arts. any any ation in- by business whether 286; for the 283 and and but enactment of dividual, corporation partnership or con- operation Art. 286a of such stores and sale trary provisions de- of this Act is of the listed merchandise any clared to be a nuisance and prohibited by still be and 286. Arts. 283 person may apply any of com- if, majority opinion And suggests, as petent jurisdiction may for and obtain provided sanctions Arts. injunction restraining such violation inadequate and 286 were “not effective for this proceedings guid- Act. Such shall large the considerations of businesses and ed injunction pro- the rules of other busy prosecutors,” dictating thus a need ceedings. injunctive process, that sanction could easily have been added Sec. 5. Occasional sales of item existing for inforcement of the person named herein engaged necessity en- laws without of selling business shall be item acting Sunday opening law. exempt from this Act. Sec. 5a. Legis- intent of the QUESTIONS INCIDENTAL

lature that Articles 286 and 287 of Penal Code of con- Texas are not to be writing length my at Before some Act; repealed provided, sidered as point disagreement with the ma- main however, provisions Ar- said jority, perhaps I should indicate certain apply ticles shall not sales items points agreement and incidental disa- listed in Section of this Act which are greement. forbidden to be sold on the pleas agree holding I with the

named Act. in this unconstitutionality pleas in bar and were abatement, judg- that the pleas CALVERT, (dissenting). Chief Justice was, therefore, improper, ment of dismissal meaningless. Texas Any objective evaluation constitu- be treated tionality proceed Department Jarrell, 418 Highway of Art. should S.W. 286a1

1. All Article references to Vernon’s Texas Penal Code. are Kelley days v. Bluff (Tex.Sup.1967); 2d 486 mowers on the consecutive of Satur- ” * * * Co., Sunday 309 S.W.2d Creek Oil 158 Tex. The fact that 19-23, Abate- (1958); separated the various items semi- Tex.Jur.2d agree that ment and Revival 3-5. I colons rather than commas does §§ Procedure, rule, Rules Civil Rule Texas nothing alter the and I find pleas in abate- authorizes us to treat the supporting majority finding section bar; take-nothing pleas ment as that the legislative hardly a different intent. only judgment be considered as makes sense to find juris- proper judgment, and we have thought that a seller of motor vehicles appeal. diction of the direct Saturday coverings on or might sell bed he Sunday and that household linens on jurisdiction agree I not have we do Leg- If the punished should be if he did. 1 of Art. 286a is to decide whether section person islature had intended to make applicable only “persons” or whether Saturday selling one on sub- of the items applicable corporations. also ject penalties another on Sun- if he sold very day, constitutionality provided it could so agree I simple language. decided in State Art. 286a was not Inc., Shoppers World, 380 S.W.2d contrary, opin- To (Tex.Sup.1964). PROCESS DUE care painstaking ion in that indicates case majority opin- apparent from the As is prop-

that our decision concerned constitutionality ion, appellees attack 4a, re- er since construction of Section If grounds. a number of of Art. 286a on pealed. sound, attack any grounds one of the interpre disagree majority’s judgment is take-nothing I with the trial court’s my 1 of Art. 286a. affirmed. tation of section be correct and should section be- majority interpreted the unconstitutional opinion the statute is appellees ar deprive if the enumerated operates mean that one2 of cause Saturday, lawof process sold due ticles of merchandise is property without Amend- only prohibited from Fourteenth merchant is contravention pro the United but is selling that article on ment to the Constitution any I, selling Constitution hibited also from Art. States of § forty-five categories items or other Texas. majority in suggest that the of items. I the items of engaged in Persons proper grammatical terpretation is not the 1, Art. in section merchandise listed interpretation of the section. The section activity, and legitimate engaged provides person, both the “[a]ny of the sale legislative prohibition Saturday days (2) two consecutive ** sell items, right on the limitation who sells offers ** them, constitu- squared with can accessories; any clothing; clothing exer- legitimate process if it is a tional due piece goods shall be lawn mowers or cloth legislative power. The police cise of the guilty of a misdemeanor.” Use of prohibition or limitation contained require, in the ab- “any” and “or” words exercise proper represent does not something indicating a different sence of a rea- there is police power unless intent, inter- that the legislative section proscrip- its relationship between sonable “Any person preted reads as follows: protection and the tions clothing consecutive any sells who Stand- safety, general welfare. morals or Sunday; days Saturday re- such a determining whether ards for clothing accessories on consecutive precise. anything but lationship exists are Sunday; any lawn throughout Emphasis indicated. unless otherwise mine

417 Richards, otherwise, always If the rule “it would v. were them in State We summarized 597, 166, legislative disregard (1957), power at be within to the 157 Tex. S.W.2d protection provisions giving constitutional in these words: T. individual.” Houston & C. R. Co. police of power line the “The where 648, 396, Dallas, City S.W. of 98 Tex. sub- the encounters the barrier state of at 653 (1905). “[a] susceptible not process is of stantive due * * * large to determine not discretion general As a rule the exact definition. public what the re- the interests of with, power does but commensurate quire, necessary but are what measures for exceed, provide the duty not to for the interests,” protection the of State v. such health, real people needs of the not, Richards, may supra; a state “[b]ut safety, and con- comfort convenience as guise public, the protecting under the of private sistently property be with arbitrarily private interfere with business rights. guarantee process of due prohibit occupations impose lawful right deprive does not the state of the unreasonable unnecessary and restrictions by private property to take the exercise * ** upon pro- them. Constitutional proper of in a power such and lawful invoked, duty the having tections been manner, power but it is the essential the the of determine chal- to whether purpose accomplishing, used the of lenged provision to has reasonable relation and appropriate in a the ac- manner to protection public] the purchasers of [the complishment of, purposes the for which * * * really accomplish and the tends to ” * * * it exists. purpose for Jay which it enacted.” 504, Bryan, Burns Baking 264 U.S. Co. Section 4 Art. 286a declares that the 513, 813, at 68 L.Ed. S.Ct. at health, promote Act’s purpose “to the 32 A.L.R. (1924). people recreation welfare of opinion In the But, forepart of this I said that legislative state.” declaration health, Sunday opening Art. 286a was a law rather purpose promote Act’s is to Actually, than a Sunday closing law. people recreation and welfare of the is not course, speak not does enough; appear that it must there is a rea- opening or establish- of mercantile closing legislative sonable basis conclusion ; speaks ments sale or offers proscriptions contained the Act categories forty-six for sale of items or will in promote protect fact possible relation- merchandise. What people. recreation and welfare particular ship the sale non-sale of the “ * * * complete cases consecutive items on the of merchandise [T]he holding accord in that a mere can days assertion have health, morals, legislature that a statute relates recreation or wel- public health, State; safety, and I suggested or welfare does fare is not reasonable bring conjure up not of such statute itself within been unable police power my judicially a state. relationship Governmental own mind. I notice, automatically knowledge, does become action as matter common stores, reasonably related grocery achievement of drug stores days legitimate governmental legally and substantial open the consecutive purpose by preamble Saturday mere assertion in sell offer Hence, question. listed legislation large sale a items number power, legisla- days; prohibition exercise such of the sale both fiat, cannot, ture does its mere make items on the two consecutive such indisputably require which is unrea- law reasonable anof effort incongruity stores. The utter sonable.” Constitu- Am.Jur.2d pro- Art. provisions 286a tional Law 281. relate § health, recreation, public tection or open wel- mercantile establishments that remain * * patent inescapable. fare is so Most Saturday to be on both and Sunday mirrors, drug premise modern clocks clearly stores sell hand seems false. Under be to flashlights. and Mirrors and clocks the law as it 286a existed at the time Art. 1; flashlights solely listed in section Is are not. no stores which dealt enacted, “hardware”, flashlight included in in and thus some or all of the merchandise listed in may open list sold legally of items which be section 1 could for business be days or Sunday. prohibited offered for on the consecutive on Art. 283 labor any is, of Saturday Sunday? prohibited If it how has stores and Art. 286 morals, public health, or merchant from recreation wel- the merchandise dealer which, open permitting place fare been be- his “to be benefited of business flashlight Saturday, pro- purpose cause he sold a for the If assume on traffic.” we that, effect, persons hibits the merchant mirror from with Art. 286a those selling clock, list- flashlight, solely another on who deal all of even some or myself merchandise, persons ed who Sunday? uncertain and those Being relationship operate business proscriptions places between could not health, some profitably Art. 286a and the on recreation both without merchandise, be people, may welfare of the which have been listed items of necessity keep their mind, to legislative turned for as- forced economic I Saturday places either sistance filed in closed on brief this on business reasonably Sunday, perhaps behalf of the I found we could State. there reduce Act is calculated relevant statement: conclude that the establishments the number of mercantile 286a, “Obviously, Article Texas Penal Saturday. Quite open remain on which Code, many things good relates to in- however, it is calculated to obviously, cal- public generally. The act is of establishments crease the number culated mer- to decrease number of since, prior to Sunday, Art. open remain on open cantile establishments that remain Sunday. 286a, open on legally none was Saturday relieving both thus by the posed State’s question thus affording traffic more congestion authorizing an Act argument is whether family families a recreation and establish- Sunday operation of business family other when all members activity theretofore, open which, legally were ments present. can Thus traffic reducing reduce Saturday, on is calculated congestion, oppor- families an affording afford congestion and to traffic more. tunity together at a common to relax time re- time family a common members health, public and recreation welfare I laxation. think not. not be benefited. This brief will 286a, weekend enactment Art. lengthened many public Before reciting forty- shoppers one or more any benefts Penal Texas Code required in section were six items listed give public generally.” calculated Saturday and had shopping to do their on congestion dealing Laws which reduce traffic at store shopping a choice of op- family afford laws which members A decrease in the merchandise. listed portunity may a common together relax at Saturday open on the number of stores rela- time have a reasonable undoubtedly congestion traffic calculated to relieve tionship public recreation and stores points at those where on that welfare; but, reasonably can it be said closed, assuredly calculated but is most things do either of these ? Art. 286a will Saturday at on congestion increase traffic remain points those choose where stores argument of benefits The State’s Moreover, the mere day. open on upon the premised statement “[t]he Sunday on closing opening the number of on calculated to decrease act is com- religious calculated Relief of burdens avoid the affected stores is of some of religious in plaints by Sabbatarians congestion traffic to create grounds, on that I at a loss none existed but am to understand areas before where Saturday and day. Finally, the how relief of such create burdens can affected relation the statute’s opening some of the reasonable between Sunday proscriptions traf- and recrea- is calculated increase the stores to proportionately, and welfare. I will this mat- congestion, fic more than examine depth analyzing ter in greater into somewhat bringing again once the stream of Supreme the shoppers traffic did not 1961 Court cases. all of those who liking, prices find merchandise to their at requiring As a result from the different liking, Saturday. on so far as In reached, one the has relied I have State concerned, congestion traffic the statute is upon cases the primarily four decided thus effect of is calculated to States, Supreme of the United to wit: Court corrects. aggravating allegedly evil it 420, Maryland, v. 81 McGowan 366 U.S. Perhaps the best evidence the State’s 1101, Galla S.Ct. 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961); argument traffic-reduction is merit without Market, Super gher Kosher 366 v. Crown majority is that the of this has de- 617, 1122, U.S. L.Ed.2d 536 81 S.Ct. 6 approve clined to embrace or it. (1961); Guys Two from Harrison-Allen 582, McGinley, town 81 S.Ct. v. U.S. idea is statute calculated L.Ed.2d 551 Braunfield (1961); 1135/6 family opportunity afford more members an 1144, Brown, 81 S.Ct. 6 L.Ed. 366 U.S. together to relax aat common time seems 2d 563 first involved the (1961). The case altogether argument The same fanciful. Sunday validity Maryland laws. has universally been used courts They labor, proscribed all business support Sunday validity and sustain the Sunday, other commercial activities on with closing they day provide common laws— foods, exceptions as certain sale of family rest all can when members come drugs, gasoline, newspapers and certain together for It relaxation and recreation. exceptions other In particular localities. is difficult to see argument how the can case, considered the the second the Court support now be used to and sustain a Sun- Sunday validity of Massachusetts laws day opening law calculated re- open keeping shops which forbid the sult some working members of families labor, doing business or work Saturday Sunday on while resting exceptions. A with certain other rest members and work Pennsylvania in the law was under attack Sunday. The practical effect of the provides last cases. It that whoever two appears statute respect just in this to be Sunday shall certain items of mer sell on purpose. reverse of its stated subject shall be chandise fine. some argu- as with the items listed are almost identical with traffic-reduction Just ment, majority listed in of Art. has also declined to those section 1 286a. approve upheld validity of Supreme embrace or common- The Court State’s day-of-rest Indeed, argument. majority of the three al statutes states rejected applicable every has at as here common- most conceivable constitutional day-of-rest per- tack, philosophy, process. eloquently violation due including so opin- however, vading majority concurring noted, Mary to be that the Supreme are true ions in the four 1961 Court land and Massachusetts statutes Instead, laws, Sunday closing Sunday closing comparable cases. law majority “one-day-a-week- has enactment of Art. invented Texas statutes before Pennsylvania philosophy, and surcease-from-commerce” and that the was suggests process having the due is with- effect attack considered at validity philosphy out taken law. Notice should be closing because new satisfactory point should crucial the Court’s decisions more Sabbatarians. philosophy. day country. People in this of all reli- common-day-of-rest was people religion regard This, again, gions over with no over and said the Court family activity, as a time for purpose various for sustainable relatives, visiting late friends and for laws. sleeping, passive and active entertain- supra, Maryland, McGowan ” * * ments, out, and the dining like. said: Court U.S., S.Ct., at at present purpose and “The effect Supreme United If Court Closing [Sunday them most of laws] purpose correctly stated States all provide rest uniform mercantile requiring the laws ** U.S., at citizens week, pur- establishments on one S.Ct., at 1115. pose only by laws can be which served “ cannot be require closing Sunday; * * * It true that State’s if a merchant a give served laws which provide its simply interest were any day choice the week work, respite periodic citizens a a from the week. specific day on another everyone rest regulation demanding 286a proscriptions of Art. follows that the seven, day leaving the choice one relation have no reasonable individual, day suffice. and, people; recreation or welfare “However, purpose is not the State’s arbitrary therefore, the Article one-day-in-seven merely provide a and should power, police exercise of this, the stoppage. addition work declared unconstitutional. day apart from seeks set one State rest, day repose, recrea- all a others as GREENHILL, JJ., join SMITH day all tranquility which —a this dissent. community family members of the opportunity enjoy spend together, day on which there exists quiet and the'

relative disassociation from

everyday intensity ac- of commercial

tivities, visit people which

friends and relatives are not avail- who days.” U.S., at during working

able S.Ct., at 1118. HILL, Appellant, Frank

“Obviously, empowered State is rest-one-day-in-seven determine Texas, Appellee. The STATE of pur- accomplish statute would No. 41622. pose; provide for a it would not special Appeals general activity, a cessation of Court of of Texas. Criminal atmosphere tranquility, a Oct. 1969. family all members or friends Rehearing Denied Dec. might spend together. and relatives Furthermore, plain that it seems

problems enforcing involved

provision exceedingly would be more enforcing

difficult than those a com-

mon-day-of-rest provision.

“Moreover, knowledge is common day of come the first the week has special as a rest significance

to have

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Spartan's Industries, Inc.

Court Name: Texas Supreme Court

Date Published: Nov 5, 1969

Citation: 447 S.W.2d 407

Docket Number: B-1255

Court Abbreviation: Tex.