Legal Opinion

State v. Armstrong

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided November 8, 1968No. 41212, 41213PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Peterson, Justice.

Defendant, a prostitute who allegedly solicited two men for purposes of prostitution, was tab charged and convicted in Hennepin County Municipal Court of violating the so-called “loitering” and “lurking” ordinances of the city of Minneapolis. Minneapolis Ordinance § 870.010, labeled as the “vagrancy” ordinance, provides in relevant part:

“No person shall loiter on the streets or in a public place or in a place open to the public with intent to solicit for purposes of prostitution or any other act prohibited by law” (Italics supplied.)

Minneapolis Ordinance § 870.050, labeled…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Screws v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. Hygrade Provision Co. v. ShermanSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  3. Omaechevarria v. IdahoSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
  4. In Re CreglerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  5. Hygrade Provision Co., Inc. v. Sherman, Atty. Gen. Of New York Lewis & Fox Co. v. Same. Satz v. SameSupreme Court of the United States · 1925

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. City of Chicago v. MoralesIllinois Supreme Court · 1997
  2. People v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Wyche v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1993
  4. City of Baton Rouge v. RossSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1995
  5. People v. MasonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1982

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API