State v. Armstrong
Supreme Court of Minnesota
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
- Screws v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Hygrade Provision Co. v. ShermanSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Omaechevarria v. IdahoSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
- In Re CreglerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- 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
- City of Chicago v. MoralesIllinois Supreme Court · 1997
- People v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- Wyche v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1993
- City of Baton Rouge v. RossSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1995
- People v. MasonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1982
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.