The charge that the petitioner suffered or permitted the premises to become disorderly (charge number 1) is not sustained by substantial evidence. There is no proof that the prostitute who testified in the proceeding solicited men or committed any act in the premises by which they tended to be disorderly. There is proof that one employee of the petitioner called the witness to meet some persons there and that...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.