Legal Opinion
Dae v. City of St. Louis
Missouri Court of Appeals
Decided January 29, 1980No. 41202PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GUNN, Presiding Judge.
Appellants, the owner and four masseuses of the Morning After Spa, a St. Louis massage parlor, instituted action against the City of St. Louis to enjoin enforcement and declare unconstitutional three municipal ordinances: Ordinance No. 56859, pertaining to the licensing and regulation of massage and bath establishments; Ordinance No. 56893, prohibiting prostitution; and Ordinance No. 57249, prohibiting vagrancy. The trial court denied appellants relief; we affirm.
The transcript on appeal does not include Ordinance Nos. 56893 and 57249, and we do not take judicial notice…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Papachristou v. City of JacksonvilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1968
- State v. CrawfordSupreme Court of Missouri · 1972
- State v. BalesSupreme Court of Florida · 1977
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Brunner v. City of ArnoldMissouri Court of Appeals · 2013
- City of Independence v. RichardsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1983
- J.H. Fichman Co. v. City of Kansas CityMissouri Court of Appeals · 1990
- K-Mart Corp. v. St. Louis CountyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1984
- Sanders v. City of BridgetonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1985
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.