<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Community Defense Counsel &#187; Regulation (SOB): Licensing</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/tag/regulation-sob-licensing/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress</link>
	<description>Protecting Children and Their Neighborhoods</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 17:30:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Texas Court of Appeals upholds El Paso SOB ordinance</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/08/15/texas-court-of-appeals-upholds-el-paso-sob-ordinance/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/08/15/texas-court-of-appeals-upholds-el-paso-sob-ordinance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Aug 2011 21:17:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Effects (Porn)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Distance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Interior]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Licensing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: E.B.S. Enterprises v. City of El Paso]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2597</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em><a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/20110815.pdf">E.B.S. Enterprises v. City of El Paso</a></em>, No. 8-10-00088-CV (Tx. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2011) 

Appellants assert three arguments in contending that the trial court erred in granting the City’s motion for summary judgment. The first contests the relevancy of the City’s secondary effects evidence to enacting four provisions of the ordinance that apply to Appellants. The second complains that there was a genuine issue of material fact. And the third asserts that the ordinance is preempted by a State statute. We find no merit in any of the issues raised . . . ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/08/15/texas-court-of-appeals-upholds-el-paso-sob-ordinance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>MO: Pevely denies license for adult store</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/01/04/mo-pevely-denies-license-for-adult-store/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/01/04/mo-pevely-denies-license-for-adult-store/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2011 22:19:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Licensing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Missouri]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2486</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["City officials have denied an appeal to allow the Pure Pleasure Boutique to obtain licenses to operate, one of the store's owners said Monday."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/01/04/mo-pevely-denies-license-for-adult-store/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>6th Circuit upholds $3,000 SOB licensing fee</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/11/23/6th-circuit-upholds-3000-sob-licensing-fee/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/11/23/6th-circuit-upholds-3000-sob-licensing-fee/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:30:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 6th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Licensing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Kentucky]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2463</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0738n-06.pdf"><em>729, Inc. v. Kenton County Fiscal Court</em></a>, No. 09-6291 (6th Cir. Nov. 23, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/11/23/6th-circuit-upholds-3000-sob-licensing-fee/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NJ Superior Court reverses injunction against sexually oriented business, holds internet is not sufficient “alternative forum”</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/09/17/nj-superior-court-reverses-injunction-against-sexually-oriented-business-holds-internet-is-not-sufficient-%e2%80%9calternative-forum%e2%80%9d/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/09/17/nj-superior-court-reverses-injunction-against-sexually-oriented-business-holds-internet-is-not-sufficient-%e2%80%9calternative-forum%e2%80%9d/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Sep 2010 21:27:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Alternative Sites]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Licensing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: New Jersey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2431</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a3537-08.opn.html"><em>Borough of Sayreville v. Club 35, LLC</em></a>, No. A-3537-08T1 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Sept. 17, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/09/17/nj-superior-court-reverses-injunction-against-sexually-oriented-business-holds-internet-is-not-sufficient-%e2%80%9calternative-forum%e2%80%9d/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Licensing provisions are unconstitutional where they fail to require the city to act on applications within a specified period of time</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/07/19/licensing-provisions-are-unconstitutional-where-they-fail-to-require-the-city-to-act-on-applications-within-a-specified-period-of-time/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/07/19/licensing-provisions-are-unconstitutional-where-they-fail-to-require-the-city-to-act-on-applications-within-a-specified-period-of-time/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2010 19:33:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Licensing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Washington]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2385</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>ATL Corp. v. City of Seattle</em>, No. C09-1240RSL, 2010 WL 2836164 (D. Wash. July 19, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/07/19/licensing-provisions-are-unconstitutional-where-they-fail-to-require-the-city-to-act-on-applications-within-a-specified-period-of-time/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>KY: Supreme Court upholds Louisville sexually oriented business ordinance</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/04/22/ky-supreme-court-upholds-louisville-sexually-oriented-business-ordinance/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/04/22/ky-supreme-court-upholds-louisville-sexually-oriented-business-ordinance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:41:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Alcohol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Distance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Licensing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Nudity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Time]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Kentucky]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2213</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://citizenlinkblog.com/drivethru/2010/04/louisville-slugger/">CitizenLink, DriveThru</a>: "The  Supreme Court of Kentucky handed the city of Louisville a huge gift today when it decided in favor of an extensive sexually oriented business ordinance passed by the Metro Council in 2004. All but one provision was held to be constitutional."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/04/22/ky-supreme-court-upholds-louisville-sexually-oriented-business-ordinance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Florida: Lawsuit over proposed strip club settled</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/02/21/florida-lawsuit-over-proposed-strip-club-settled/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/02/21/florida-lawsuit-over-proposed-strip-club-settled/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Feb 2010 17:05:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Licensing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Zoning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Florida]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2036</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/strip-26053-club-destin.html">Northwest Florida Daily News</a>: "The city’s first topless bar may open by the end of the summer, according to The Oasis operator Terry Stephenson. The Destin City Council voted 5-2 last week to approve a settlement of a lawsuit brought by Stephenson over his right to operate a strip club in the city."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/02/21/florida-lawsuit-over-proposed-strip-club-settled/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Detroit: Vote on strip club ordinance may be delayed</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/11/13/detroit-vote-on-strip-club-ordinance-may-be-delayed/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/11/13/detroit-vote-on-strip-club-ordinance-may-be-delayed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:33:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Alcohol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Licensing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Nudity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Michigan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1568</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["A lack of a quorum at a Detroit City Council meeting this morning may derail a scheduled vote next week on a licensing ordinance to govern strip clubs in the city."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/11/13/detroit-vote-on-strip-club-ordinance-may-be-delayed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>E.D. Kentucky: $3,000 sexually oriented business annual licensing fee may survive First Amendment scrutiny</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/09/24/e-d-kentucky-3000-sexually-oriented-business-annual-licensing-fee-survives-first-amendment-scrutiny/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/09/24/e-d-kentucky-3000-sexually-oriented-business-annual-licensing-fee-survives-first-amendment-scrutiny/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:01:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 6th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Licensing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Kentucky]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: 729 Inc v Kenton County Fiscal Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1273</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em><a href="http://www.communitydefense.org/cases/2009092401.pdf">729, Inc., et. al. v. Kenton County Fiscal Court</a></em>, No. 04-212-DOB (E.D. Ky., Sept. 24, 2009)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/09/24/e-d-kentucky-3000-sexually-oriented-business-annual-licensing-fee-survives-first-amendment-scrutiny/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>1st Circuit Authorities for Various SOB Ordinance Requirements</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/08/17/1st-circuit-authorities-for-various-sob-ordinance-requirements/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/08/17/1st-circuit-authorities-for-various-sob-ordinance-requirements/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:31:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Memos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ordinances]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Memos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Ordinances]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 1st Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Amortization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Distance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Interior]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Licensing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): No-Touch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Nudity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Time]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Zoning]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1124</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Research as of June 2009 Limitations on hours of operation El Marocco Club, Inc. v. Fox, 110 F.Supp.2d 54 (D.R.I. 2000) Prohibition on nude performance City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277 (2000); Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991) 18-inch raised stage requirement No Decision Found. Six foot distance requirement [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/08/17/1st-circuit-authorities-for-various-sob-ordinance-requirements/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

