Utah Supreme Court
Can sexually oriented business licenses be transferred to new locations? Petersen v. South Salt Lake City Explained
Summary
Petersen operated a licensed sexually oriented business that was forced to relocate when her lease terminated. The city denied her request to transfer her license to a new location, claiming the license was non-transferable and the new location violated distance requirements measured property line to property line. The trial court granted summary judgment for the city.
Analysis
In Petersen v. South Salt Lake City, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether a sexually oriented business license could be transferred to a new location and how distance requirements should be measured under municipal ordinances.
Background and Facts
Gayle Petersen operated “Leather and Lace,” a licensed sexually oriented business in South Salt Lake City for approximately ten years. When her lease was terminated in 1996, she relocated to a properly zoned building that she believed satisfied the city’s 600-foot distance requirement from other such businesses. The city denied her request to transfer her license, arguing that sexually oriented business licenses were non-transferable and that the new location violated distance requirements when measured property line to property line.
Key Legal Issues
The case presented two primary issues: whether the city’s ordinance prohibited transfer of a sexually oriented business license from one location to another, and the proper method for measuring the 600-foot distance requirement between such businesses.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment for the city. Regarding transferability, the court examined Section 3B-15-14, which prohibited transfer of “ownership” but found no language restricting location transfers. The court declined to “read into the City’s sexually oriented business ordinance what the drafters failed to include.” On distance measurement, the court distinguished the case from Texas National Theatres, noting that unlike broad zoning ordinances addressing entire properties, this ordinance regulated only “activities within the sexually oriented business.” Therefore, building-to-building measurement was appropriate rather than property line to property line.
Practice Implications
This decision demonstrates the importance of precise drafting in municipal ordinances. Courts will not expand ordinance language beyond its plain meaning, even when municipalities argue for broader interpretations. The decision also shows how regulatory purpose guides interpretation—when ordinances target specific activities rather than property use generally, measurement standards should align with that narrow focus.
Case Details
Case Name
Petersen v. South Salt Lake City
Citation
1999 UT 93
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 980109
Date Decided
September 24, 1999
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
A sexually oriented business ordinance that prohibits transfer of ownership does not prohibit transfer of location, and distance requirements between such businesses should be measured building-to-building when the ordinance regulates activities within buildings rather than entire properties.
Standard of Review
Correctness for legal conclusions on summary judgment
Practice Tip
When challenging municipal ordinance interpretations, examine the ordinance’s specific language, drafting history, and regulatory purpose to argue for interpretations that align with the stated goals rather than expansive readings.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.