Tietjens v. City of St. Louis
Supreme Court of Missouri
1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.
The question for decision is whether the city of St. Louis is authorized to enact a rent control ordinance. Since the city’s charter has not granted it specific power to legislate on such a subject, its authority to do so must be reasonably implied from the broad power in its charter to regulate business generally in the interest of the health, safety and welfare of its inhabitants. While we recognize the worthy purpose sought to be accomplished, still we must hold that the settled law of this state does not permit a city'to invoke such power on the ground it is reasonably implied in'general…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Nebbia v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Bowles v. WillinghamSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Block v. HirshSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- People Ex Rel. Durham Realty Corp. v. La FetraNew York Court of Appeals · 1921
- Edgar A. Levy Leasing Co. v. SiegelSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by68 opinions
- Birkenfeld v. City of BerkeleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Inganamort v. Borough of Fort LeeSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1973
- Farley v. GraneyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1960
- Missouri Health Care Ass'n v. Attorney GeneralSupreme Court of Missouri · 1997
- Borden Company v. ThomasonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1962
63 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.