Skip to main content
· 1/31/2020

K&W Automotive, LLC v. Town of Barrington

Syllabus

The Town of Barrington appealed from a final judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, two businesses located in the Town that are licensed to sell tobacco and electronic nicotine delivery systems and their respective owners, granting the plaintiffs' request for declaratory and injunctive relief. The Town of Barrington had enacted an ordinance banning the sale of flavored tobacco products to anyone and also prohibiting the providing of any tobacco products to persons under the age of twenty-one. The plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking a declaration that the ordinance is null and void and also seeking a permanent injunction that would prevent the Town from enforcing the ordinance. The Providence County Superior Court granted the plaintiffs' request, finding that the Town lacked the authority to enact the ordinance because it dealt with a matter of statewide concern and the state had not authorized the Town to legislate in this domain. The Town appealed, arguing that the hearing justice erroneously found that the Town lacked authority under its Home Rule Charter to enact the ordinance because, in the Town's view, the ordinance addresses a matter of purely local concern. Additionally, the Town argued that, because it had authority to enact the ordinance, the hearing justice erred in failing to conduct a preemption analysis. The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the hearing justice and held that the Town did not have authority under its Home Rule Charter to enact the ordinance because the regulation of tobacco is a matter of statewide concern. After reaching the conclusion that the Town lacked authority to enact the ordinance, the Supreme Court also determined that the hearing justice did not err in refraining from deciding whether the ordinance would be preempted by state law. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court in favor of the plaintiffs.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • “The land was granted according to the official grant of the survey of such lands, and the plat itself and its notes, lines and descriptions become a part of the grant or deed by which they are conveyed, as much as if the description was written out on the face of the deed itself.”
  • “The land was granted according to the official grant of the survey of such lands, and the plat itself and its notes, lines and descriptions become a part of the grant or deed by which they are conveyed, as much as if the description was written out on the face of the deed itself.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.