Triangle Oil, Inc. v. North Salt Lake Corp., 16269
| Decision Date | 27 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 16269,16269 |
| Citation | 609 P.2d 1338 |
| Parties | TRIANGLE OIL, INC., a corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. NORTH SALT LAKE CORPORATION et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
George K. Fadel, Bountiful, for plaintiff and appellant.
Michael T. McCoy, Salt Lake City, for defendants and respondents.
Plaintiff, Triangle Oil, Inc., sought to mandamus the North Salt Lake city council to issue a Class A beer license to its multipurpose gas station and grocery store. 1 From the district court's rejection of its petition, plaintiff appeals.
Plaintiff contends that the action of the city was in excess of any authority granted it by statute; that since beer can be purchased from other licensees in the city, the denial of plaintiff a license does not come within the police power to safeguard the health, safety and morals; and that its action is arbitrary and discriminatory.
In explanation of the city council's refusal to grant plaintiff's application, the mayor sent plaintiff a letter on September 6, 1978. The pertinent part stated:
Due to the size of North Salt Lake and to the fact that there are now seven active beer licenses in the city, the council voted unanimously to disapprove your request. Their action in no way reflects upon you or your business. It merely reflects the council's feelings that there are now sufficient beer outlets within the city.
The statute whence the city derives its authority is Sec. 32-4-17, U.C.A. 1953, which provides that:
Cities and towns within their corporate limits . . . shall have power to license, tax, regulate or prohibit the sale of light beer, at retail, in bottles or draft . . . .
Acting pursuant to that statute, the city has by ordinance provided for granting licenses for the sale of beer. The section of its ordinance dealing with the number of licenses to be issued states:
The total number of businesses licensed to sell beer in the city of North Salt Lake shall not exceed four, provided that this ordinance shall not operate to reduce the number of businesses now licensed to sell beer whether issued by this municipality or by the county if such business is annexed nor shall it affect reapplications for such licenses. 2
Plaintiff urges that there should be strict construction of the grant of authority to the city; and that inasmuch as the statute does not expressly grant authority to restrict the number of licenses to be issued, the city is without power to do so. We agree with the proposition that cities are political subdivisions of the state created by statute and that the only powers they have must be found in the statutes which create them. 3 However, that statement is subject to the elaboration that they have the powers expressly set forth and those necessarily implied therefrom which are essential to carrying out the duties and purposes of the city government. 4
In this, as in most controversies, there are two sides to the coin, neither wholly irrational. On the one hand, we observe with some seriousness, that it is difficult to see how licensing one more outlet for the sale of beer in containers, not to be consumed on the premises, could have any substantial effect upon the health, morals or safety of the community. On the other hand, in Sec. 32-4-17 quoted above, the legislature has expressly given the city a broad grant of authority to "regulate or prohibit" the sale of beer. The axiom of logic is that the whole includes all of its parts. Therefore, if a city can regulate or prohibit the sale entirely, certainly it can impose any reasonable regulations thereon. In relation to the problem dealt with herein, it is generally recognized that because beer is a beverage containing alcohol its sale is sufficiently related to the public health, morals and safety that it is subject to regulation under the police power; 5 and this extends to limitation on the number of retail outlets. 6
It appears that there are presently seven such licenses in a relatively small community. 7 If each new applicant could successfully insist that just one more would not make any substantial difference, that would effectively prevent the city from regulating the number of licenses at all, and the matter could get beyond control entirely.
Plaintiff makes the alternative argument that if the city limits the number of beer licenses they should be rotated among qualified applicants with no preference...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DAIRY PRODUCT SERV. v. City of Wellsville
...that cities have no inherent sovereign power but only those powers granted by the state legislature. See Triangle Oil, Inc. v. North Salt Lake Corp., 609 P.2d 1338, 1339 (Utah 1980); Call v. City of West Jordan, 606 P.2d 217, 218 (Utah 1979); see also Consolidation Coal Co. v. Emery County,......
-
Walker v. Brigham City
...at 607 (3d ed. rev. 1986).8 Board of Educ. v. Salt Lake County Comm'n, 749 P.2d 1264, 1265 (Utah 1988); Triangle Oil, Inc. v. North Salt Lake Corp., 609 P.2d 1338, 1340 (Utah 1980); Mantua Town v. Carr, 584 P.2d 912, 914 (Utah 1978); Child v. City of Spanish Fork, 538 P.2d 184, 186 (Utah 19......
-
Flynn v. City of Cambridge
...appears that this doctrine has been expanded in its recent applications in other jurisdictions. See generally Triangle Oil, Inc. v. North Salt Lake Corp., 609 P.2d 1338 (Utah 1980) (cities have powers expressly set forth and those necessarily implied therefrom which are essential to carryin......
-
Springville Citizens for a Better Community v. City of Springville
...to a great deal of deference. See Xanthos v. Board of Adjustment, 685 P.2d 1032, 1034 (Utah 1984); Triangle Oil, Inc. v. North Salt Lake Corp., 609 P.2d 1338, 1339-40 (Utah 1980); Cottonwood Heights Citizens Ass'n v. Board of Comm'rs, 593 P.2d 138, 140 (Utah 1979); Naylor v. Salt Lake City ......