Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Prince & Princess Enterprises, LLC v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Health Services

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided May 15, 2009No. 1 CA-CV 08-0151 APublished

1ConcurrenceBarker, Judge

¶ 18 I agree this matter needs to be remanded but have a somewhat different analytical framework than that set forth in the majority analysis. My view gives a meaning to the term “retail store” in A.R.S. § 36-601.01(A)(10) that differs from Magnum’s and the majority’s. It may produce a different result on remand and in future cases decided under this Act.

A

¶ 19 Like the majority, I agree that simply because Magnum’s has and uses a series 6 liquor license (permitting it to sell liquor for consumption on premises) does not disqualify it from being a “retail tobacco store,” to which the exemption…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. GomezArizona Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Dowling v. StapleyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2008
  3. McDonald's Corp. v. GlennonLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1978
  4. Tucson Botanical Gardens, Inc. v. Pima CountyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2008

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API