Legal Opinion
City of Pagedale v. Murphy
Missouri Court of Appeals
Decided June 15, 2004No. ED 83655PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BOOKER T. SHAW, Judge.
Sean Murphy (“Murphy”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment finding him guilty of possessing a pit bull in violation of City of Pagedale (“City”) Ordinance No. 1169 and sentencing him to pay a fine of $100. Murphy argues the trial court’s judgment is not supported by sufficient facts and that City Ordinance No. 1169 is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite because it fails to provide a definition for “pit bull.” We disagree and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Murphy is a resident of the City and was charged with possession of a pit bull on his premises in…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State v. AndersonOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- Hearn v. City of Overland ParkSupreme Court of Kansas · 1989
- Vanater v. Village of South PointDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1989
- Moto, Inc. v. Board of Adjustment of St. LouisMissouri Court of Appeals · 2002
- Opponents of Prison Site, Inc. v. CarnahanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1999
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Unverferth v. City of FlorissantMissouri Court of Appeals · 2013
- State Ex Rel. Chastain v. City of Kansas CityMissouri Court of Appeals · 2009
- Houpt v. HouptMissouri Court of Appeals · 2005
- New Life Evangelistic Ctr. v. City of St. LouisMissouri Court of Appeals · 2018
- West Central Missouri Region Lodge 50 of The Fraternal Order of Police v. The city of Grandview, MissouriMissouri Court of Appeals · 2015
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.