Legal Opinion
Deinlein v. District of Columbia
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided April 11, 1978No. Nos. 11738, 11815, 11504 and 11732PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
NEWMAN, Chief Judge:
Appellants Sandra J. Deinlein, Linda M. Buck, and Julia Concepcion were separately convicted after trial each of administering a cross-sexual massage on the premises of duly licensed massage establishments in violation of D.C.Code 1973, § 47-2311. Appellant Karl K. Bolle was convicted of aiding and abetting the administration of a cross-sexual massage in a licensed massage parlor in violation of the same D.C.Code provision. Appellants seek reversal primarily on the ground that § 47-2311 is unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous, both on its face and as applied to them, and…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Connally v. General Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- United States v. HarrissSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- Lanzetta v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Jordan v. De GeorgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- United States v. PetrilloSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Sobin v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985