State v. B Bar Enterprises, Inc.
Arizona Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
GORDON, Vice Chief Justice:
This case arose under A.R.S. §§ 12-801 et seq., the Bawdy House Abatement Act. Appellants challenge the constitutionality of that act. Taking jurisdiction under Ariz. Const.Art. 6, § 5(3) and Ariz.R.Civ.App.P. 19(e), we affirm the trial court’s denial of appellants’ motion to dismiss.
Appellants operated “massage parlors” in Maricopa County. Customers would pay a woman working at the parlor for a massage. The woman would tell the customer that most of the fee would go to the parlor operator and that she worked primarily for “tips.” After a brief massage, the woman…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Fuentes v. ShevinSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Dombrowski v. PfisterSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Stanley v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Paris Adult Theatre I v. SlatonSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- Martin v. ReinsteinCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1999
- Sears v. HullArizona Supreme Court · 1998
- Armory Park Neighborhood Ass'n v. Episcopal Community ServicesArizona Supreme Court · 1985
- Big D Construction Corp. v. Court of AppealsArizona Supreme Court · 1990
- Father in Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-114487 v. AdamArizona Supreme Court · 1994
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.