Court Opinion

ID: 9673182
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:07:48.559946+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:20.537425
License: Public Domain

R. E. Noble, J.
(dissenting). The opinion of Judge Gillis states accurately and concisely the facts and the basis of my dissent in this case.
While the language quoted by the majority from State ex rel Wayne County Prosecutor v Diversified Theatrical Corp, 396 Mich 244; 204 NW2d 460 (1976), is dictum as applied to this case, inasmuch as that case involved a movie theatre and the showing of obscene films rather than accosting and soliciting by prostitutes in a bar, the holding constitutes a reasonable and necessary limitation upon overly broad statutory provisions, and is equally applicable to the facts in this case.
*729In the disjunctive, as the abatement statute is written, it states among other things:
"Any building * * * or place * * * used by * * * prostitutes or other disorderly persons * * * is hereby declared a nuisance and * * * shall be enjoined and abated * * * .” MCLA 600.3801; MSA 27A.3801.
This language begs for judicial interpretation. The Supreme Court, in the Diversified case, supra, has supplied a reasonable interpretation consistent with constitutional limitations.
The appellants’ bar was not a house of prostitution.
I would reverse.