Oueilhe v. Lovell, 8727
| Decision Date | 09 March 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 8727,8727 |
| Parties | Ed OUEILHE, doing business as 'Wrestling Studios,' Appellant, v. Carl E. LOVELL, Individual and in his capacity as Attorney for the City of LasVegas, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
This appeal from an order of the district court denying the application for injunction of Ed Oueilhe, d.b.a. 'Wrestling Studios' places in issue the constitutionality of Las Vegas, Nev., City Code Title V, ch. 41, § 3 (1975). That section provides that 'It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to conduct, manage, operate, maintain, or advertise a business wherein for payment, direct or indirect, wrestling partners of the opposite sex may be obtained.' The term 'wrestling' is defined by the ordinance to mean 'to grapple or engage by physical contact whereby one person seeks to overpower another or throw him or her to the floor or ground.' Violation of the ordinance carries a fine of not more than $500, imprisonment in the city jail for not more than six months, or a combination thereof.
By reason of criminal sanctions for disobedience the ordinance must be strictly construed, In re Laiolo, 83 Nev. 186, 426 P.2d 726 (1967), and limited in its application to the objective sought to be accomplished.
Oueilhe is the proprietor of a business which offers the public wrestling partners of the opposite sex and advertises such service in a sexually aggressive manner. One advertisement thereof states: He sought to enjoin enforcement of the ordinance and a declaration of its unconstitutionality. The district court denied him relief. This appeal followed.
It is contended that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad in that it may be read to prohibit legitimate wrestling, Judo and Karate schools which are lawful enterprises and, therefore, protected activity. It also is claimed that the Equal Protection Clause is offended by the gener-based classification of the ordinance. Finally, it is asserted that the ordinance is an impermissible Bill of Attainder. We reject each contention and affirm the ruling of the district court.
1. The purpose of the ordinance is stated in these words: 'It is further determined as a matter of legislative determination that the operation of a business of providing wrestling partners of the opposite sex is detrimental to the health and safety of the public and community, that such a business is offensive to the public morals and decency, that such a business is detrimental to the continued economic development of the community and tends to degrade the City as a provider of good entertainment, and is harmful to the cause of attracting tourists and visitors to the City; that there are substantial physiological differences between males and females which make it physically dangerous for them to engage in contact sports against each other, especially one that is so physically demanding as wrestling.'
In our view, that expression of purpose does not reflect an intention to prohibit legitimate wrestling, whether between members of the opposite sex or otherwise, nor to prohibit Judo and Karate schools where members of the opposite sex may or may not be engaged in the learning of those disciplines. Rather, the prohibition of the ordinance concerns businesses which utilize wrestling as a subterfuge for sexual pleasure for pay between female and male. It was within the province of the City to determine that a rational relationship exists between the preclusion of such an enterprise and the object sought to be accomplished, namely the protection of the public welfare, safety and morals.
2. The Equal Protection Clause is not offended. Although it is true that gender-based...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peters v. Narick, No. 14776
...of Representatives, --- Mass. ---, 371 N.E.2d 426 (1977); Commonwealth v. King, 374 Mass. 5, 372 N.E.2d 196 (1977); Oueilhe v. Lovell, 93 Nev. 111, 560 P.2d 1348 (1977).19 We were led to much of the material regarding suspect classifications by "The Characteristics of Suspect Classification......
-
IDK, Inc. v. Clark County
...See Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 61-62, 93 S.Ct. 2628, 2637, 37 L.Ed.2d 446, 459 (1973). See also Oueilhe v. Lovell, 93 Nev. 111, 560 P.2d 1348, 1349 (1977). Mere association, incidental to a commercial transaction, does not mean that the parties to the transaction are nece......
-
Peters v. Narick
...of Representatives, --- Mass. ---, 371 N.E.2d 426 (1977); Commonwealth v. King, 374 Mass. 5, 372 N.E.2d 196 (1977); Oueilhe v. Lovell, 93 Nev. 111, 560 P.2d 1348 (1977).19 We were led to much of the material regarding suspect classifications by "The Characteristics of Suspect Classification......
-
MRM, Inc. v. City of Davenport
...284 Md. 490, 496, 398 A.2d 52, 56 (1979) (specific rejection of "compelling state interest" standard); Oueilhe v. Lovell, 93 Nev. 111, 114, 560 P.2d 1348, 1349 (1977) ("wrestling" partners of opposite sex); Smith v. Keator, 285 N.C. 530, 206 S.E.2d 203, appeal dismissed for want of a substa......