City of Watertown v. Meseberg
South Dakota Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
RENTTO, Presiding Judge.
These defendants were charged with becoming barmaids in violation of an ordinance of the City of Watertown. Pursuant to stipulation the controversy was heard by the trial court, without a jury, on an agreed statement of facts. The court denied their motions to dismiss and found them guilty after which a fine of $25 was imposed on each of them. They appeal.
In their assignments of error they claim that the ordinance in question is (1) unconstitutional because of its vagueness and uncertainty; (2) that it is invalid as an exercise of municipal power in excess of the power…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Ericksen v. City of Sioux FallsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1944
- Custer City v. RobinsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1961
- Torigian v. SaundersSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1959
- City of Rapid City v. RenschSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1958
- Kravis v. HockSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1948
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Piper v. MeredithSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1970
- City of Pierre v. BlackwellSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2001
- Blue Fox Bar, Inc. v. City of YanktonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1988
- Donovan v. City of DeadwoodSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1995
- Sioux Falls Municipal Employees Ass'n v. City of Sioux FallsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1975
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.