MARQUETTE RESTAURANT ASSN V CITY OF MARQUETTE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
MICHIGAN RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION,
and TEAM LANDMARK, INC., MARQUETTE
MOUNTAIN FOOD & BEVERAGE
CORPORATION, PARK THIRD, INC.,
STARBURST CORPORATION; OFFICE
LOUNGE, INC., TIROLER HOF INN, INC., and
MICHIGAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
FOR PUBLICATION
March 13, 2001
9:00 a.m.
Plaintiff-Appellees,
v
No. 217232
Marquette Circuit Court
LC No. 98-035362-CZ
CITY OF MARQUETTE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Updated Copy
April 27, 2001
Before: Gribbs, P.J., and M.J. Kelly and Hoekstra, JJ.
M.J. KELLY, J.
This case involves an amendment of a Marquette city ordinance. The amendment placed
a total ban on smoking in restaurants. Plaintiffs argued that the amendment was in conflict with
a state statute governing nonsmoking seating in food service establishments and sought to
regulate an area already preempted by state law. The trial court agreed and granted summary
disposition in favor of plaintiffs under MCR 2.116 (C)(10). Defendant appeals as of right. We
affirm.
Defendant argues that the Michigan statute mandating a minimum number of
nonsmoking seats in food service establishments does not preempt the ordinance prohibiting
smoking in restaurants and that the Marquette ordinance is not in conflict with state law because
-1-
it is more stringent than the state statutory standards regarding nonsmoking sections in
restaurants. We disagree. Statutory interpretation is a question of law that is considered de novo
on appeal. People v Webb, 458 Mich 265, 274; 580 NW2d 884 (1998).
The state statute in question, MCL 333.12905(2); MSA 14.15(12905)(2) mandates the
maximum number of smoking seats a food service establishment may maintain:
Subject to subsection (3), a food service establishment with a seating
capacity of fewer than 50, whether or not it is owned and operated by a private
club, and a food service establishment that is owned and operated by a private
club may designate up to 75% of its seating capacity as seating for smokers. A
food service establishment with a seating capacity of 50 or more that is not owned
or operated by a private club may designate up to 50% of its seating capacity as
seating for smokers. A food service establishment that designates seating for
smokers shall clearly identify the seats for nonsmokers as nonsmoking, place the
seats for nonsmokers in close proximity to each other, and locate the seats for
nonsmokers so as not to discriminate against nonsmokers.
The ordinance at issue in this case places a complete ban on smoking in restaurants in the
city of Marquette. Marquette, as a Michigan home rule city, is subject to the constitution and
general laws of this state. People v Llewellyn, 401 Mich 314, 321, n 1; 257 NW2d 902 (1977).
A municipality is precluded from enacting an ordinance if 1) the ordinance
is in direct conflict with the state statutory scheme, or 2) if the state statutory
scheme pre-empts the ordinance by occupying the field of regulation which the
municipality seeks to enter, to the exclusion of the ordinance, even where there is
no direct conflict between the two schemes of regulation. [Id. at 322.]
In order to determine whether the Marquette ordinance is in conflict with a state statute,
this Court must examine whether the ordinance banning smoking in restaurants is inconsistent
with or an extension of what the Legislature intended. In essence, to determine whether a direct
conflict exists, this Court must consider whether the ordinance prohibits what state law permits.
Detroit City Council v Stecher, 430 Mich 74, 89; 421 NW2d 544 (1988), citing Builder's Ass'n v
-2-
Detroit, 295 Mich 272, 277; 294 NW 677 (1940); Miller v Fabius Twp Bd, 366 Mich 250, 258;
114 NW2d 205 (1962).
In Miller, a determining factor for deciding whether a local ordinance was preempted by
state law was whether the area regulated by the ordinance was local in nature as opposed to a
general statewide issue. The local ordinance in Miller prohibited water skiing between 4 p.m.
and 10 a.m., but the state had passed a statute prohibiting water skiing between one hour after
sunset and one hour before sunrise. Miller, supra at 259. Our Supreme Court held that the
ordinance was not preempted by state statute because the local ordinance added to the state
regulation and was not in conflict with state law. Id. The Miller Court reasoned that certain
problems affecting specific inland lakes differ, "such as the number of boat users on the lake; the
amount of fishing on the lake; the congestion and conflict between fishermen and water skiers;
the location of the lake to densely populated areas," and thus regulation of inland lakes was an
area that logically could be regulated by local ordinances because the character of many of these
problems was local in nature and not statewide. Id. at 259. This is not the case with the
Marquette ordinance.
Smoking is a statewide issue that is not local in character, unlike
regulations involving inland lakes.
To determine whether a conflict exists, this Court must also ascertain if the ordinance is
merely an extension of state law. Id. In Miller, the local ordinance increased the time when
water skiing was prohibited rather than prohibiting water skiing on certain lakes altogether. Id. at
258-259. The Miller Court analogized this principle to traffic ordinances of a city and the state
traffic statutes because densely populated areas of a city with a large number of cars require
greater regulation than rural communities and thus the extension of state regulation by local
-3-
ordinance is appropriate. Id. at 259. The Marquette ordinance does something more than
expanding the state statute to make it more stringent. The ordinance creates a general prohibition
on smoking as opposed to, for example, creating a higher percentage of nonsmoking tables.
In Detroit v Qualls, 434 Mich 340, 363; 454 NW2d 374 (1990), our Supreme Court
stated that whether the problem to be regulated was local in character determined whether the
area was preempted by state law. In Qualls, the defendant operated a retail fireworks business in
the city of Detroit. Id. at 345. The city of Detroit brought suit against the defendant for
forfeiture of the fireworks and argued that the defendant's license only permitted him to sell and
store fireworks in amounts of one hundred pounds or less. Id. The defendant argued that the city
ordinance conflicted with state law, which did not place a limit on fireworks. Id. Our Supreme
Court held that the local ordinance and state law were not in conflict because the local ordinance
merely went further than state law in its prohibition. Id. at 363-364. Qualls is distinguishable
from the present case because the state law in Qualls was less specific. In Qualls, the state law
regulating the amount of fireworks a retailer may have on the premises only required that it be a
reasonable amount. Id. What constituted a reasonable amount could be determined by the local
municipalities depending on the population density, numbers of retailers, and specific dangers.
This type of regulation and what is reasonable based on the danger to the area is obviously best
assessed at the local level.
Again, this type of regulation logically differs from smoking
regulations because the danger of secondhand smoke is not specific to the Marquette area.
Defendant argues that the nonsmoking ordinance is not preempted because MCL
333.12915; MSA 14.15(12915) does not preempt every local ordinance regulating food service
establishments, but only those in conflict with the state health code. However, this argument
-4-
fails because MCL 333.12905; MSA 14.15(12905) directly addresses smoking and nonsmoking
seats in restaurants by requiring a certain number of seats to be nonsmoking seating. "[W]here
the state law expressly provides that the state's authority to regulate a specified area of the law is
to be exclusive, there is no doubt that municipal regulation is preempted." Llewellyn, supra at
323, citing Noey v Saginaw, 271 Mich 595; 261 NW2d 88 (1935).
MCL 333.12915; MSA 14.15(12915) states:
A county, city, village, or township shall not regulate those aspects of food
service establishments or vending machines which are subject to regulation under
this part except to the extent necessary to carry out the responsibility of a local
health department pursuant to sections 12906 and 12908. This part shall not
relieve the applicant for a license or a licensee from responsibility for securing a
local permit or complying with applicable local codes, regulations, or ordinances
not in conflict with this part. [Emphasis added.]
The difficulty in assessing the meaning of the statute lies in reconciling the first and
second sentences of MCL 333.12915; MSA 14.15(12915).
When reading the first part,
prohibiting municipalities from enacting ordinances in areas "subject to state regulation," in
conjunction with the second part, allowing "local codes, regulations or ordinances not in conflict"
with the health code, it is clear that to withstand this statute, a local ordinance must both address
an area not preempted by state statute and be in accordance with the state statute. The Marquette
ordinance falls short of both prongs of this standard because it involves an area already
specifically covered by state statute and it directly opposes what the state statute specifically
allows.
Defendant contends that the statutes should be construed liberally. Defendant argues that
because the Marquette ordinance merely expanded the state regulation of smoking in food
service establishments, it is not in conflict with state law and is therefore not preempted.
-5-
Defendant further avers that legislative history should be taken into account when deciding this
issue and that legislative intent can be gleaned from the 1993 amendment of the statute that
increased the number of nonsmoking tables required in food service establishments. Legislative
history and statutory construction might be more helpful if there were not already a statute with
specific language directly on point. MCL 333.12905; MSA 14.15(12905) directly addresses the
issue whether restaurant owners have discretion to have smoking areas in restaurants and it
provides that they do. "If the language used is clear, then the Legislature must have intended the
meaning it has plainly expressed, and the statute must be enforced as written." Nation v W D E
Electric Co, 454 Mich 489, 494; 563 NW2d 233 (1997), citing Hiltz v Phil's Quality Market, 417
Mich 335, 343; 337 NW2d 237 (1983). "When a statute is clear and unambiguous, judicial
construction or interpretation is unnecessary and therefore, precluded." Lorencz v Ford Motor
Co, 439 Mich 370, 376; 483 NW2d 844 (1992). "Once a statute has been declared unambiguous
on its face, there is no room for further construction; legislative intent must be gleaned from the
clear and explicit words of the statute." Sam v Balardo, 411 Mich 405, 418; 308 NW2d 142
(1981). Here, the language is clear and judicial construction is not necessary. The trial court
correctly concluded that the ordinance is in direct conflict with a food service establishment's
right under MCL 333.12905(2); MSA 14.15(12905)(2) to designate a certain percentage of its
seating capacity as seating for smokers. The question whether there should be a total ban on
smoking in restaurants must be left to the Legislature.
Affirmed.
Gribbs, P.J., concurred.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Roman S. Gribbs
-6-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.