{
  "id": 2743094,
  "name": "SUNSET PACKAGE STORE, INC., E. L. Dunagan, d/b/a Shade Western Lounge and Package Store, Murle Cox, d/b/a the Sands, Edward L. Green, d/b/a Rex Bar and Mint Bar, lmogene Whitfield Trussell, d/b/a Owl Package Store, Jake Holten, d/b/a Hi-Way Package Store, Canal Liquor Store, Inc., Jack Kasem, d/b/a Melody Club, Jerry Grotewoid, d/b/a Jerry's Package Store, Clarence E. Small, d/b/a Downtown Club, and Crawford-Carlsbad, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF CARLSBAD, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sunset Package Store, Inc. v. City of Carlsbad",
  "decision_date": "1968-06-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 8556",
  "first_page": "260",
  "last_page": "263",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "79 N.M. 260"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "442 P.2d 572"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M.",
    "id": 8835,
    "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "64 N.M. 454",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5345158
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/64/0454-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "103 A.L.R. 18",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "28-9"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "34 N.M. 250",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1556029
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/34/0250-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 N.M. 131",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1559143
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/38/0131-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 N.E. 360",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "186 Ill. 560",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3229030
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/186/0560-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "221 Ala. 565",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ala.",
      "case_ids": [
        3636963
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ala/221/0565-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 A.2d 814",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "A.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 Pa.Super. 16",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Pa. Super.",
      "case_ids": [
        726471
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/pa-super/178/0016-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "224 A.2d 883",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "A.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "245 Md. 23",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Md.",
      "case_ids": [
        1946135
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/md/245/0023-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 N.M. 137",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5343954
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/64/0137-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 426,
    "char_count": 6197,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.669,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.4579808057658497e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9216444665306742
    },
    "sha256": "3f18fd2523966f4849e4ce1042b50c5b449abea2f2c06089c18bc5a96bf4d097",
    "simhash": "1:9d81553c94a7311b",
    "word_count": 1028
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:21:18.946358+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "MOISE and CARMODY, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "SUNSET PACKAGE STORE, INC., E. L. Dunagan, d/b/a Shade Western Lounge and Package Store, Murle Cox, d/b/a the Sands, Edward L. Green, d/b/a Rex Bar and Mint Bar, lmogene Whitfield Trussell, d/b/a Owl Package Store, Jake Holten, d/b/a Hi-Way Package Store, Canal Liquor Store, Inc., Jack Kasem, d/b/a Melody Club, Jerry Grotewoid, d/b/a Jerry\u2019s Package Store, Clarence E. Small, d/b/a Downtown Club, and Crawford-Carlsbad, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF CARLSBAD, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nCOMPTON, Justice.\nThis is an appeal from a summary judgment. The complaint alleged that the defendant had failed to pass an ordinance imposing a lawful license tax for the tax period beginning July 1, 1967, in accordance with the provisions of \u00a7 46-4 \u2014 2, N.M.S.A. 1953. The defendant answered and, upon consideration of appellees\u2019 motion, the pleadings and the deposition of the Mayor of the City of Carlsbad, the court granted summary judgment, and the city has appealed.\nOrdinance No. 298, upon which the city relies, was enacted in 1945, the pertinent provisions of which read:\n\u201cARTICLE III.\nLicense Ta-v\n\u201cSECTION 1. That there is hereby imposed an annual license tax upon retailers, dispensers, and clubs selling, possessing for the purpose of sale, or offering for sale, alcoholic liquors within the City of Carlsbad, New Mexico. \u201cSECTION 2. That the amount of said license tax is as follows:\nFor retailers ...............$2,000.00\nFor dispensers .............$2,000.00\nFor clubs ...................$175.00\n\u201cSECTION 3. The license tax period shall begin July 1st of each year and \u2022end June 30th of the following year,\nThe ordinance was enacted pursuant to authority vested by \u00a7 46-4-2, supra, which in part reads:\n\u201cMunicipalities within or composing local option districts are hereby empowered, by duly adopted ordinance, to im\u2022pose an annual, nonprohibitive municipal 'license tax upon the privileges of persons holding state licenses under the provisions of this act to operate within such municipalities as retailers, dispensers or clubs. The amount of such license tax and the dates and manner of the payment thereof shall be fixed on or before the first day of June of each year by the ordinance imposing the same. n\u00a1 * *\u00bb\n\\\nThe narrow point on appeal is whether the ordinance, thus enacted, imposed a valid license tax for the tax period beginning July 1, 1967. Admittedly, it had never been modified since its enactment. Appellant contends that the ordinance remains in effect until it is amended or repealed. Appellees contend that the statute requires the enactment of a license tax ordinance annually in order to have a valid imposition of the tax. The trial court sustained appellees\u2019 contention and granted their motion for summary judgment.\nWe find the statute free of ambiguity; hence, it must be given its literal meaning. Weiser v. Albuquerque Oil and Gasoline Company, 64 N.M. 137, 325 P.2d 720. Noticeably, the statute empowers municipalities by ordinance to impose an annual license tax upon the privilege of persons holding state licenses to operate within a municipality as retailers, dispensers or clubs. It also requires municipalities to fix the amount of such tax, the date and manner of payment on or before the first day of June of each year as required \u201cby the ordinance imposing the same.\u201d Appellees would have us construe the term \u201cby the ordinance imposing the same\u201d to mean that \u00e1 new ordinance annually fixing the amount, the date and manner of payment of such tax for subsequent tax periods is essential to a valid imposition of a license tax. We do not so construe, the term. The ordinance passed in 1945 imposed the license tax, fixed the amount, the date and the manner of payment. Had the term \u201cto impose an annual\u201d license tax appearing in the statute read \u201cto impose annually\u201d a license tax, and had the term \u201cby the ordinance imposing the same\u201d read \u201cby an ordinance imposing the same,\u201d possibly appellees\u2019 position would rest on a more tenable ground, but the statute does not read that way.\nWe conclude that the tax imposed by the ordinance is a privilege tax imposed on a certain class of persons for the privilege of carrying on businesses for which a license is required. See American Nat. Bldg. & Loan Ass\u2019n v. City of Baltimore, 245 Md. 23, 224 A.2d 883; Fischer v. City of Pittsburgh, 178 Pa.Super. 16, 112 A.2d 814. Also see 5 McQuillin, 3d Ed., Municipal Corporations, \u00a7 15.42. The amount, the date and manner of payment thus fixed by the ordinance remain from year to year until such time the ordinance is modified or repealed by an ordinance of the legislative body enacting the same. Sed Woco-Pep Co. of Montgomery v. Town of Wetumpka, 221 Ala. 565, 130 So. 72; People ex rel. Conlon v. Mount, 186 Ill. 560, 58 N.E. 360.\nAppellees challenge the constitutionality of the statute and the ordinance as an abridgment of due process and the equal protection clause of Art. 2, \u00a7 18 and Art. 8, \u00a7 1, New Mexico Constitution and the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. In support of their position they argue that had evidence been presented it would have shown a gross disparity of annual income between the various retailers, dispensers and clubs operating within the municipality. The claim of unconstitutionality must be rejected. Having concluded that the tax involved is a privilege tax, appellees\u2019 argument must fail, for, as such, it is in the nature of a non-property tax to which Art. 8, \u00a7 1, is not applicable. See Flynn, Welch & Yates v. State Tax Commission, 38 N.M. 131, 28 P.2d 889; State v. Gomez, 34 N.M. 250, 280 P. 251; and Annot., 103 A.L.R. 18, at 28-9. Further, it should be noted that reasonable classifications allowing the imposition of such taxes by the legislature does not deny equal protection or due process. Edmunds v. Bureau of Revenue of New Mexico, 64 N.M. 454, 330 P.2d 131.\nThe judgment should be reversed, and it is so ordered.\nMOISE and CARMODY, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "COMPTON, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Stephen L. ReVeal, Carlsbad, for appellant.",
      "Frank M. Mims, Albuquerque, amicus curiae.",
      "Lon P. Watkins, C. N. Morris, Carlsbad, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "442 P.2d 572\nSUNSET PACKAGE STORE, INC., E. L. Dunagan, d/b/a Shade Western Lounge and Package Store, Murle Cox, d/b/a the Sands, Edward L. Green, d/b/a Rex Bar and Mint Bar, lmogene Whitfield Trussell, d/b/a Owl Package Store, Jake Holten, d/b/a Hi-Way Package Store, Canal Liquor Store, Inc., Jack Kasem, d/b/a Melody Club, Jerry Grotewoid, d/b/a Jerry\u2019s Package Store, Clarence E. Small, d/b/a Downtown Club, and Crawford-Carlsbad, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF CARLSBAD, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 8556.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nJune 17, 1968.\nStephen L. ReVeal, Carlsbad, for appellant.\nFrank M. Mims, Albuquerque, amicus curiae.\nLon P. Watkins, C. N. Morris, Carlsbad, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0260-01",
  "first_page_order": 292,
  "last_page_order": 295
}