Nye County v. Plankinton
This text of 587 P.2d 421 (Nye County v. Plankinton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
[740]*740OPINION
By the Court,
Respondents are the owners of a house of prostitution in Nye County, Nevada, known as the “Chicken Ranch”. The house is situated on property owned by respondents and is located outside both the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county.
On November 21, 1977, appellant Pomeroy Neighbors, Administrator of Nye County, filed a complaint, pursuant to NRS 244.360, alleging respondents’ operation of a house of prostitution constituted a “nuisance per se under the provisions of the Nevada Supreme Court decision in Cunningham v. Washoe County.”1 See Cunningham v. Washoe County, 66 Nev. 60, 203 P.2d 611 (1949), approving the common law rule that a house of prostitution was illegal and, thus, constituted a public nuisance.
Respondents were served with a notice of nuisance hearings to be conducted by the Nye County Commissioners. At the conclusion of those hearings, the Commissioners declared the “Chicken House” a nuisance per se and ordered it abated.
On January 19, 1978, respondents commenced this action in the Fifth Judicial District Court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. After careful consideration of the matter, the district court concluded that NRS 244.345 had repealed the common law rule that a house of prostitution was a nuisance. Accordingly, the court permanently enjoined appellants from abating respondents’ house of prostitution as a nuisance per se. Appellants contend this was error. We disagree.
The thrust of appellants’ argument is that Cunningham is controlling in the present case. In Cunningham, respondent sought to enjoin appellant from operating a house of prostitution within the city of Reno. Respondent alleged that appellant was in violation of both the common law, declaring prostitution illegal, as well as statutes proscribing the maintenance and [741]*741operation of a house of prostitution either within 400 yards of a school or church, or in any house fronting on a principal business street in any town in Nevada.2 Appellant contended the subject statutes had repudiated the common law rule and, further, that the outlawing of houses of prostitution within 400 yards of a school or church or on the main street of a town necessarily implied that they were lawful in other areas. This court rejected appellant’s argument, concluding the statutes had neither constructively nor impliedly repealed the common law and, thus, appellant’s operation of a house of prostitution was properly enjoined.
Since our decision in Cunningham, NRS 244.345(8) was enacted.3 This provision, when read in conjunction with NRS 244.345(1), manifests a statutory licensing scheme for houses of prostitution outside of incorporated cities and towns.4 In our view, this licensing scheme is repugnant to and, by plain and necessary implication, repeals the common law rule that a house of prostitution constitutes a nuisance per se. See West Indies v. First Nat. Bank, 61 Nev. 13, 214 P.2d 144 (1950); Cunningham v. Washoe County, supra. Cf. NRS 1.030. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
587 P.2d 421, 94 Nev. 739, 1978 Nev. LEXIS 674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nye-county-v-plankinton-nev-1978.