Any person who sells or suffers to be sold or delivered any beverage to a person who
has not reached his or her twenty-first (21st) birthday either for his or her own
use or the use of his or her parents or any other person, or allows any person who
has not reached his or her twenty-first (21st) birthday to drink beverages on premises
licensed under this title or suffers or allows any persons who have not reached their
eighteenth (18th) birthday to sell or serve any beverage on the premises shall for
the first offense be subject to a fine of two hundred fifty dollars ($250); for the
second offense, be subject to a fine of five hundred dollars ($500), and for the third
and any subsequent offense, be subject to a fine of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750).
In the event that there are no offenses in three (3) successive years from the date
of the last offense, then the next offense shall be treated as a first offense. Nothing
in this chapter shall be construed to prevent licensees from hiring any person who
has reached his or her eighteenth birthday.
Notes of Decisions
Women's Liberation Union of Rhode Island, Inc. v. Israel, 379 F. Supp. 44 (D.R.I. 1974).
· cites it 21× “G.L. § 3-8-5, which, in pertinent part, subjects holders of Class C retail liquor licenses, their agents and employees to criminal sanctions and disqualification from holding any liquor license for a five-year pe *46 riod for serving or allowing any woman to drink beverages on…”
Selwyn v. Ward, 879 A.2d 882 (R.I. 2005).
· cites it 4× “The plaintiff asserts that defendant owed her a duty arising out of G.L.1956 § 3-8-5. She contends that her injuries were foreseeable by RC Liquors by virtue of the sheer quantity and volatile nature of the grain alcohol it allegedly sold to seventeen-year-old Andrews, in…”
Hallene v. Smith, 201 A.2d 921 (R.I. 1964).
· cites it 6× “She contends, as we understand her, that the local board erred in that it heard and determined a violation, if any, of §3-8-5, which makes the sale or delivery of liquor to a minor a criminal offense, but that the notice of the hearing charged her with a violation of §3-8-1,…”
Cesaroni v. O'DOWD, 177 A.2d 777 (R.I. 1962).
“1956, §3-8-5, and no evidence that petitioner authorized, directed, or ratified such a sale; and also that a statute which imposes criminal liability for the acts of others violates the due process clause of sec.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.