# Reynolds v. Louisiana Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control

> Supreme Court of Louisiana · December 21, 1965 · 248 La. 639

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9658156

## Case

- **Full name:** Lawrence J. REYNOLDS, D/B/A Larry & Katz and John Schwegmann, Jr., and Paul Schwegmann v. LOUISIANA BOARD OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Louisiana
- **Decided:** December 21, 1965
- **Citations:** 248 La. 639; 181 So. 2d 377
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Sanders
- **Judges:** Hamlin, Hamiter, Sanders, Summers
- **Cited by:** 15 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9658156

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding a valid exercise of the state's police power and stating the court had no right to review the "policy of wisdom of legislation"

## Opinion text

SANDERS, Justice
(dissenting).
The statute is unreasonable and discriminatory. I agree with the Court of Appeal’s decision that it is unconstitutional. See 173 So.2d 57 .
For instance, the statute prohibits issuance of a wholesale permit to any person or the holding of a permit by any person, unless “at all times throughout the license year” he maintains sales to twenty percent of the retailers in his trade area. LSA-R.S. 26:80D(5). 1 This provision will bar
the issuance of future wholesale permits, for no applicant has such a volume of customers upon beginning business. Therefore, the requirement restricts wholesale business to those presently engaged in it. Administrative regulations cannot remedy the vice, because a regulation contrary to the statute’s express provisions will be invalid. See Charbonnet v. Board of Architectural Examiners, 205 La. 232 , 17 So.2d 261 .
Exempted from the statute are: “Persons engaged primarily in the sale, handling, *657 distribution, and storage of alcoholic beverages which are ultimately delivered or transported beyond the borders of the state * * * ” (Italics mine).
Proponents of the statute suggest this provision exempts “border houses” that primarily “export” alcoholic beverages to other states. But as phrased, the exemption is not limited to exporters, properly speaking. It also applies to sales within the state in domestic transactions, when the liquor is ultimately and for any purpose transported across the state line. The exemption therefore depends upon the fortuitous travels of the commodities sold. I think the exemption unconstitutionally discriminates between wholesalers in the state.
For the reasons assigned, I respectfully dissent.
. The California regulation upheld in Duke Molner Wholesale Liquor Co. v. Martin, 180 Cal.App.2d 873 , 4 Cal.Reptr. 904, Certiorari denied 364 U.S. 870 , 81 S.Ct. 112 , 5 L.Ed.2d 92 , contains no such requirement. It provides only that no license shall be “held” by any person who does not sell to “retailers generally rather than a selected few retailers.” The statute then sets forth two instances in which it is “conclusively presumed” that a wholesaler is selling to retailers generally based upon percentage of retail customers and volume of small sales.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9658156. Public record. Not legal advice.