The Truth about Dumb Laws
You've seen the e-mail forwards and website links providing lists of hilariously offbeat Dumb Laws from across the United States, laws like "In New Orleans, you may not tie an alligator to a fire hydrant." There's even a board game based on guessing which "dumb law" out of four choices is the real one.
While a good deal of "dumb laws" are left over from bygone eras and reveal concerns that seem strange and often hilarious by today's perspective, even some of the more believable ones can be a little farfetched from a legal perspective.
At Total Lawyers, we pride ourselves on being a reliable resource for diverse amounts of legal information, from current news articles on legal topics to the basics of constitutional law. On this page devoted to "Dumb Laws," you'll find regularly updated items exposing the truth behind some of the more popular dumb laws out there.
So next time you read one of those e-mail forwards with a list of dumb laws in your home state, surf on over to Total Lawyers to see if you really are breaking a current law if you're training your pet bear to wrestle!
June 18, 2008
You own your neighbor’s lawn in New York if you mow it for five years? Not anymore…
Though many dumb laws remain on the books for decades past their period of usefulness, it’s heartening to see local and state politicians address the problem when they make steps to repeal laws that just don’t make sense anymore.
The state of New York had a law concerning “adverse” possession of real property that mandated that owners of property make a claim to gain their land from encroachment within 10 years or the land would legally be the property of the person making encroachment. This could apply to fences\d places across the property line or a hedge or tree that grows into another property. Under the law, the property boundaries would be revised to count the encroached section of the land as belonging to the individual encroaching.
However, because of the way that the law reads, it could also apply if you mowed someone’s law for 10 years and therefore had proof of your upkeep of the land. Though no cases made news reports on the subject, it’s not hard to imagine someone familiar with the law suckering another unsuspecting soul—perhaps even an elderly person who could not care for their property.
The state legislator who sponsored the bill, Assemblywoman Teresa Sayward, being a former dairy farmer, appreciated that the purpose of the original law was to allow those who work the land to gain possession of it over time. However, with most family farmers selling their land to agribusiness over the past several decades, this rationale for the law became largely irrelevant.
New York Governor David Paterson signed off on the repeal of the law this week. In other words, encroaching neighbors, stay on your own side of the line from now on!
June 13, 2008
Everett, Washington: Just Say No to Public Hypnotism!
Today's dumb law comes from Everett, Washington, a suburb of Seattle, and reads:
It is illegal to display a hypnotized or allegedly hypnotized person in a store window.
In fact, the municipal code of Everett has an entire clause dedicated to "Hypnotism" under Title 9, "Public Peace, Morals and Welfare" in the subsection "Offenses Against the Person." The language of the clause, however, does not entail quite the same law as quoted in the dumb laws:
9.24.010 Hypnotism unlawful.
It is unlawful for any hypnotist or mesmerist, or other person, to exhibit or display, or permit to be exhibited or displayed, any subject of any hypnotist or mesmerist, or any person while under the influence of or alleged influence of hypnotism or mesmerism, in any window or public place outside of the hall or theater where such hypnotist or mesmerist is giving his entertainment or exhibition. (Prior code § 6.26.010)
The dumb law gets the term "alleged" used by the skeptical drafters of the law, but fails to describe where those under the influence or "alleged influence" of hypnotism may not be displayed publicly; instead of the random "store window," hypnotist subjects are not allowed to be displayed in advertisement for the hypnotist's act. Technically, then, a hypnotized person could be displayed in a "store window" if it is not outside the theater where the hypnotist is performing.
And if you think this harks back to another era, just consider that the town lawmakers revised the fines for violating this provision - up to $500 fine and 6 months in jail - as recently as 1974!
May 30, 2008
Of Physical Impotence and Lunar Months: North Carolina's Head-Scratching Marriage Clause
For the most part, our examination of so-called "dumb laws" and their legal basis has been relegated to the trivial or the absurd. But many dumb laws address very serious or potentially widespread issues. In North Carolina, we're told,
"A marriage can be declared void if either of the two persons is physically impotent."
Of course, both the issue of qualification for marriage and the issue of physical impotence are very grave in nature indeed. We're not talking about dance marathons here (see update dated March 7, 2008 below). And yet, the legal code of North Carolina offers no hope of escape from this patent absurdity:
§ 51‑3. Want of capacity; void and voidable marriages.
All marriages between any two persons nearer of kin than first cousins, or between double first cousins, or between a male person under 16 years of age and any female, or between a female person under 16 years of age and any male, or between persons either of whom has a husband or wife living at the time of such marriage, or between persons either of whom is at the time physically impotent, or between persons either of whom is at the time incapable of contracting from want of will or understanding, shall be void. No marriage followed by cohabitation and the birth of issue shall be declared void after the death of either of the parties for any of the causes stated in this section except for bigamy. No marriage by persons either of whom may be under 16 years of age, and otherwise competent to marry, shall be declared void when the girl shall be pregnant, or when a child shall have been born to the parties unless such child at the time of the action to annul shall be dead. A marriage contracted under a representation and belief that the female partner to the marriage is pregnant, followed by the separation of the parties within 45 days of the marriage which separation has been continuous for a period of one year, shall be voidable unless a child shall have been born to the parties within 10 lunar months of the date of separation.
Nestled within the list of voidable conditions is one that is surely one of the stupidest conditions for annulling a marriage: physical impotence. But does it automatically make a marriage void?
The short answer is no. As a legal overview at the North Carolina State University website demonstrates, "The marriage is not automatically void but requires a District Court declaring it so." In other words, it can be grounds for annulment, but if both parties are fine with the situation, there is no problem. One or both parties must bring the matter to court for that. However, in the event that one spouse discovers that he or she is impotent, the law could apply. To someone dealing with the shock or pain of discovering they are impotent, it is tragic that this law could cause them to fear revealing their condition or otherwise because of fear of losing their marriage. It's definitely a dumb law that should be revisited.
Perhaps while North Carolina is at it, they could also clean up the wording of that final clause as well. The phrase "within 10 lunar months" is a bit odd: counting phases of the moon to determine the legal period of ability to void a marriage is perhaps even more ludicrous than the law on impotence. Luckily, though, it's much less potentially harmful.
May 22, 2008
This week's dumb law comes from the wild North:
In North Dakota, charitable groups can hold stud poker games to raise money, but only twice a year.
Turning to the North Dakota Century Code, Chapter 53-06.1 contains the relevant clause regarding gambling regulations of charitable organizations, clause 53-06.1-07.2.
53-06.1-07.2. Poker. Poker may be conducted on not more than two occasions per year. An organization may supply the dealer. The maximum single bet is one dollar. Not more than three raises, of not more than one dollar each, may be made among all the players in each round of bets. For nontournament activity, an organization shall charge each player a fee not to exceed two dollars per one-half hour of playing time, collected in advance. For a tournament, an organization shall charge each player an entry fee and the amount of prizes may not exceed ninety percent of the gross proceeds.
No mention is made of "stud" poker, but the rest seems spot on. In reference to "charitable organizations," these are mentioned as the basis for the chapter in the definitions section.
Dumb law, though? Most states have charitable gambling regulations to separate these from for-profit gambling operations to cover events such as charity raffles. North Dakota's provision for poker may not be universal, but it does exist in other states, such as California. And the specificity could be arguably effective in terms of deterring unwanted events, since the rules are outlined so explicitly.
May 7, 2008
How Much does Running Out of Gas Cost in Youngstown, Ohio?
A word of warning if you live in or are visiting eastern Ohio: even with fuel prices as high as they are, make sure you top that gas tank off. Otherwise, you could be facing a run-in with the law.
Today's dumb law comes from Ohio. The popular version reads thus:
"In Youngstown, Ohio, you may not run out of gas."
Strange, yes, but true! (To an extent.) The full version comes from the Youngstown City Ordinances, Section 331.44:
331.44SUFFICIENT FUEL REQUIRED IN CONGESTED DISTRICT.
(a)No person shall operate or permit to be operating any vehicle within the congested district bounded by Chestnut, Walnut, Boardman and Commerce Streets without sufficient fuel to drive the vehicle from the district.
The area outlined by the law (a square between Chestnut, Walnut, Boardman and Commerce Streets) covers downtown Youngstown, including an area of Federal Street that is being heavily redeveloped, meaning that if you're hoping to get to any municipal government office located in City Hall at 26 S Phelps St, you'll have to pass into the "congested district. "Of course, the dumb law wording comes from the implications of the law; an officer can really only establish that you do not have sufficient fuel to leave the district if you've run out of gas. And it's not for the entire city of Youngstown - just that area.
The penalty for this offense is a "minor misdemeanor," which means that an individual could pay a fine of up to $150 if convicted. Not a lot, but certainly a bit more than a tank of gas.
If you're traveling into the "congested district" and you're low on fuel, you may want to fill up your tank to avoid an unnecessary arrests. You'll find Campbell Gas Mart at 220 Belmont (between Orchard and Wood) if you're coming from the west side of Youngstown and Shehy Gas Mart at 786 Shehy St across the highway if you're coming from the east side. Don't say we didn't warn you!
April 25, 2008
What Does West Virginia Have against Red and Black?
This week's dumb law comes from the state of West Virginia:
According to the state constitution, it is unlawful for anyone to own a red or a black flag.
We turn to West Virginia Code 61-1-6. It's not the state constitution, but when the dumb law happens to be this right, we'll not quibble over minor details:
§61-1-6. Display of red or black flag unlawful.
It shall be unlawful for any person to have in his possession or to display any red or black flag, or to display any other flag, emblem, device or sign of any nature whatever, indicating sympathy with or support of ideals, institutions or forms of government, hostile, inimical or antagonistic to the form or spirit of the constitution, laws, ideals and institutions of this state or of the United States.
Okay, while maybe not "dumb," there's something missing here that would explain why the people of West Virginia (and their government officials) would lump together a "red or black flag" with flags that are "hostile, inimical or antagonistic" to the U.S. and include such a provision in their list of treasonous offenses. Wikipedia offers some historical context on the symbolism of these two particular colors of flags:
- Black flag: "The Black Flag was flown by certain irregular Confederate Army units in the American Civil War of 1861-1865 to symbolize that they would neither give, nor accept quarter; symbolizing the opposite of the white flag of surrender."
- Red flag: "Historically, and most generally, the red flag is an international symbol for the "blood of angry workers." Although much older than socialism, the flag has mainly been a socialist and communist emblem associated in particular with those ideologies' revolutionary left and radical left sections."
As you can see from the definitions, displaying black flags and red flags are examples of two particular anti-democratic political statements, involving alliance with the Confederacy and socialism, respectively. Under West Virginia law, this would be considered treason and punishable by life in prison if convicted, or a prison sentence of 3-10 years at the discretion of the jury or court.
April 15, 2008
Louisiana Florist Licensing: Interesting Conflicts or Conflicts of Interest?
Licensure is an important part of American capitalism - it's what keeps up professional standards and protects consumers from incompetence as well as unsafe practice. But the far extremes of licensing practice can sometimes border on the bizarre and utterly arbitrary. Take Louisiana, for example, and its stringent procedures and licensing practices for florists, of all people.
In order to be a retail florist in the state, you must be granted a florist license from the state horticultural commission. It's the only state that requires florist licenses for retail florists. Here's the relevant section of the law, from Louisiana Revised Statutes Section 3, §3808:
B. Retail florists shall be subject to the following provisions:
- (1) A retail florist's license authorizes the holder thereof to arrange or supervise the arrangement of floral designs which include living or freshly cut plant materials and to sell at retail floral designs, cut flowers, and ornamental plants in pots normally and customarily sold by florists.
- (2) Each person who engages in the profession of retail floristry shall have a regular employee at each place of business who is a licensed retail florist and whose license shall be on display at all times during the hours business is conducted in that profession.
- (3) The provisions of this Subsection shall not apply to persons who arrange or sell floral designs composed entirely of artificial materials, or dried plant materials, or both.
According to RS 3:3804, the Horticultural Commission regulates the granting of retail florist licenses, as well as wholesale florist licenses, landscape architects, and many other agriculture and horticultural professions. The problem for many comes in who is on this commission, as defined in RS 3:3801: one each of a licensed person in the profession. In terms of the architect and some of the other professions, this system makes sense. However, in terms of a retail position as a florist, you're talking about someone looking to grab as large a corner of the market as possible ruling on potential competition.
Further, the actual exam given by the commission is two-part, one involving a written exam with questions testing professional knowledge, and the second is a physical test, in which applicants create flower arrangements within a set time limit. Of course, the rigors might just be formal. However, when you consider that less than 50 percent of applicants pass the test, you start to see the monopoly forming under the rule of the Horticultural Commission.
No other position governed by the Horticultural Commission entails such a potential conflict of interest so directly, nor do they establish such arbitrary guidelines. And don't think would-be florists haven't noted the muddle here. To quote the title of this column, it's just "dumb."
April 8, 2008
You Can Only Have Five Minutes to Vote in Alabama?
Occasionally, one of the so-called "dumb laws" you encounter in e-mails or on the Internet will be a current law that's still valid in a state's legal code, virtually unchanged. We discussed one last time, and for this week, we'll consider another.
The state of Alabama reportedly has a dumb law that goes like this:
"A voter is only allowed five minutes to mark his ballot."
This one's actually pretty much right on. In Section 17-9-13 of Alabama Code, the law is a bit more precise with qualifying statements, but essentially it reads that the voter is given five minutes if no one is waiting behind them to vote. Here's the way that Alabama works the process:
- Starting at 4 minutes in the booth, voting official can ask if you need assistance.
- If you say no, you have 1 more minute to finish your voting, at the end of which the official can ask you to leave if you are not finished, but only if there is a line of people. If there is no line, you can have as much time as you want.
- If you say yes, however, the official or another person you choose can help for an additional 5 minutes, at the end of which the official can ask you to leave if you are not finished, but only if there is a line of people waiting. Similarly, if there is no line, you are allowed as much time as you want.
In short, you've got five minutes if people are waiting, and unlimited time if there's no line. But with the voting turnouts for the 2008 primaries and the anticipated record numbers for the general elections, it's pretty safe to say that there will be a line. So just five minutes, please.
March 21, 2008
How Many Prison Years for Stealing a Cactus in Arizona?
In Arizona, conservation and protection of native plants approaches almost obsessive status, but with good reason: many of the plants that exist in the Sonora Desert region are unique in the world, and government officials have prided themselves on advancing efforts not to upset the fragile desert ecosystem.
Which brings us to this "dumb" law:
"There is a possible 25 years in prison for cutting down a cactus."
If you've lived in the Southwest, you know that laws protecting wildlife can be Draconian in their harshness. But 25 years in prison?
The law in question can be found in the "Agriculture" section of the Arizona Legal Code, Chapter 7, Articles 1 and 2 on "Arizona Native Plants." All theft and destruction of native plants (including the cactus) is illegal, as well as moving native plants without proper permits and tags.
But what about the 25-year prison sentence? In the clause concerning enforcement, the law states that theft or destruction of a native plant is a class 4 felony at most (if the plant is valued at over $1,500). The criminal code sets the penalty for a "class 4 felony" at 2.5 years. Even in the clauses that set penalties for aggravated felonies and multiple felonies, there is no situation in which a non-dangerous class 4 felony could result in a penalty of 25 years. The highest penalty a multiple cactus-stealer could receive would be 6 years. Harsh, but not as amazing as 25 years.
March 7, 2008
Reno, Nevada: You Can Be Happy, But No Dance Marathons, Please
Welcome to Reno, Nevada, affectionately known as "The Biggest Little City in the World." With that "little city" mentality comes a penchant for small town laws. In Title 8 of the city code, "Public Peace, Safety and Morals," the "Miscellaneous Offenses" section alone contains prohibitions against yelling on a city street to sell wares or otherwise attract attention with voice or loudspeaker or stereo and against selling or "using" toy balloons inflated with hydrogen.
One oft-cited law from Reno can also be found within the section:
"In Reno, Nevada staging a marathon dance is illegal, although posting a notice on a fire hydrant about illegal dance marathons is not."
Here's the law, contained in the same section as the prohibitions against commercial noise and hydrogen-inflated balloons:
Sec. 8.04.030. Commission or marathon dancing prohibited.
It is unlawful for any person to carry on, conduct or maintain any marathon dancing or marathon walking contest or any other exhibition of like nature, or any dance where commissions are paid to the dancers therein, or any other exhibition of a similar or like nature in the city.
(Code 1966, § 11.12.130)
Right-o! However, the second part of the quoted law is a little fishy. Here's the next non-reserved clause of the law:
Sec. 8.04.050. Affixing advertisement to sidewalks, poles, trees, etc.
"It shall be unlawful for any person to post, stick, stamp, paint or otherwise affix, or cause the same to be done by another, any notice, placard, bill, poster or advertisement to or upon any sidewalk, curbing, hydrant, shade tree or tree box, fence, enclosure, or to place the same upon any building, telegraph, telephone or electric lighting pole, without first obtaining the permission of the owner, agent or occupant thereof, in the city; provided, that this section shall not apply to the posting of legal notices of any kind."
(Code 1966, § 11.12.360)
State law references: Unlawful erection, placement of outdoor advertisements, NRS 405.030.
Okay, so basically our author found the silly dance marathon law and then used the very next section.
We're now operating in one of those tangly legal clausess about what is or is not allowed to be posted for public view where or where not. Sure enough, we find "hydrant" here, with a probation against posting any type of notice on it. Except, at the end, there's an exception made: "this section shall not apply to the posting of legal notices of any kind." And so this clause must have been what our "dumb law" author had in mind when they wrote that it's legal to "post[] a notice on a fire hydrant about illegal dance marathons."
Of course, there's a catch. YOU probably can't post a legal notice on a fire hydrant, because you probably aren't able to post legal notices. So you'll just have to tug the sleeve of one of Reno's friendly policemen, or possibly go to a city department. If you live in Reno, and you're constantly trying to nip those annoying dance marathons in the bud, you probably already know.
February 13, 2008
No Stealing Vittles Violently for Vagrants in Vermont - But Who's a "Vagrant"?
This week's Dumb Law update is unusual, because the quoted law in question seems to be perfectly correct as it was passed in 1968. The law in question, quoted as coming from the statutes of the great state of Vermont:
"It's against the law in Vermont for vagrants to procure food by force. Apparently if you have a good job and stable home life, it's O.K. to procure food by force."
What needs some clarification is the way the joke is offered, as an admittedly funny implication drawn from a "literal" interpretation of the law's language. Here's the law in question, which, as you can see, seems to confirm the language of the quoted "dumb law":
"§ 3906. Injury to person or property; procuring food by threat or force
A vagrant who wilfully and maliciously injures the person or property of another, or procures, or attempts to procure, food, clothing or other property by threats or by force, shall be imprisoned not more than five years nor less than one year. (Amended 1971, No. 199 (Adj. Sess.), § 15.)"
But further examination of the code surrounding this statute reveals that the definition of "vagrant" may not be as simple as the joke suggests. In a section just prior to the quoted section, a vagrant is defined as:
"§ 3901. Vagrant defined
A transient person, roving from place to place and living without visible means of support, who begs, or who rides or attempts to ride on a railroad freight train or engine without the consent of the person in charge thereof, or who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling house, barn or other building without the permission of the owners or occupants thereof, shall be deemed a vagrant. The act of applying to a town service officer for general assistance or to a police officer for lodging or subsistence shall not be evidence that such a person is a vagrant. (Amended 1967, No. 147, § 11, eff. Oct. 1, 1968.)"
The writer of the "dumb law" joke has used a generic definition of "vagrant" to make the joke, but by considering the actual Vermont state definition of "vagrant," we can see that being indigent or homeless does not by definition make one a vagrant. In fact, the law specifically mentions that this commonly held meaning of vagrant cannot be used as evidence of vagrancy.
Rather, a "vagrant" as defined under Vermont state law means that you're either begging or have broken a law against entering trains or other private property without permission, which, as it so happens, carries with it a penalty of imprisonment of not more than two years but not less than six months, according to Vermont statute 3905. Thus, instead of merely identifying a people group, the law actually makes stealing food an additional penalty of at least one year for someone who has already been defined as a criminal by illegally entering private property - which carries the jail sentence of six months to two years - or begging on the street under the first definition of vagrant - which carries with it a jail sentence of up to six months.
It's a good lesson to remember that a legal definition in a civil or criminal code may not be exactly what the word means in everyday speech. For those worried about whether or not they are defined as vagrants under Vermont law, rest easy. The law was repealed in 1974.
February 5, 2008
For many residences in America, a homeowner's or condo owner's association regulates the appearance of your property plot with stipulations about maintenance, installation of decorations and growing of plants. For smaller cities and towns across the country, the municipal code often governs this area.
Take this "dumb law" reportedly from the municipality of Pueblo, Colorado:
"It is against the law in Pueblo, Colorado, to raise or permit a dandelion to grow within the city limits."
Further examination of the Pueblo municipal code reveals a few nuances in this law, which does currently exist in some form. Firstly, the legal provision applies to weeds in general, not just dandelions. The list given in the provision, which is not meant to be comprehensive, also includes such strange and exotic plants as leafy spurge, diffuse knapweed and mouse-ear poverty weed. And the one detail that changes the law significantly? This item, from Section 7-4-2 under the section "Weeds" of the city code:
"It shall be unlawful for any owner of land to permit weeds in excess of ten (10) inches in height to grow, lie or be located upon such land."
Quite a bit different from having NO dandelions allowed whatsoever.....
January 25, 2008
No Dominoes in Alabama....on Sunday?
A lot of times, the humor in a dumb law comes from the level of precision that it contains, as you try to imagine the exact situation in which the law would apply, or what must have been happening regularly enough for legislators and law enforcement to take note and pass a law prohibiting it. From one dumb law quoted, concerning the state of Alabama:
"Dominoes may not be played on Sunday."
Of course, the legislators in Alabama weren't singling out the particular game in question. "Dominoes" falls under the rubric of gambling in general, likely, making this particular law what's referred to as a "blue law," or law governing moral behavior, often enforceable on Sundays, that were prevalent throughout the country over our history. Some of these blue laws were not abolished until fairly recently, and some remnants still exist, such as prohibitions against selling liquor on Sundays or before noon on Sundays.
However, Alabama has since abolished this particular blue law. Laws mentioning dominoes do exist, including Alabama Criminal Code Section 34-6-12, banning dominoes and other forms of gambling in billiards establishments. However, one provision in the law is equally amusing:
"In counties having populations of not less than 56,500 nor more than 59,000, according to the 1970 or any subsequent federal decennial census, domino games shall be lawful in billiard rooms or other rooms in which billiard tables are located."
That's getting fairly specific, if you ask me!
January 18, 2008
Nevada Requires Use of Condom for Sex?
One oft-quoted Nevada law is this one, which fails to even make it past the common sense test:
"In Nevada, sex without a condom is considered illegal."
Unless all the children being born in Nevada are conceived in other states, clearly here's one dumb law that needs further clarification. Actually, sex without a condom is considered illegal in a licensed brothel, which are legal (and heavily regulated) in most counties in Nevada. If the owner of such a house of prostitution does not enforce this and other mandatory stipulations, such as providing STD screening for its prostitutes, the owner faces heavy fines and sanctions.
Here is the actual law, NAC 441A.805:
"Use of latex prophylactic required. A person employed as a prostitute in a licensed house of prostitution shall require each patron to wear and use a latex prophylactic while engaging in sexual intercourse, oral-genital contact or any touching of the sexual organs or other intimate parts of a person."
January 9, 2008
Maryland Only Allows Condoms to Be Sold in Bars?
One so-called "dumb law" reads thus:
"In Maryland, it is illegal to sell condoms from vending machines with one exception: prophylactics may be dispensed from a vending machine only ‘in places where alcoholic beverages are sold for consumption on the premises.'"
However, research suggests that clarification is necessary. The only mention of prophylactics or condoms in Maryland state law refers to prohibitions against selling non-latex prophylactics in vending machines, and a prohibition against selling condoms in vending machines in schools up through secondary schools.
However, there DOES exist such a law, though it does not cover the entire state of Maryland. The quoted portion of this law comes from the legal statutes of Salisbury, Maryland. Just a reminder that one omitted detail can be lead to misapplication of this very local law.
You Can't Wear a Bathing Suit on a Highway in Kentucky?
One popular dumb law comes from Kentucky state legislation. According to websites (although no online record of the text is available from Kentucky any longer), Kentucky Statutes section 1376m-1, 1376m-2 reads, "No female shall appear in a bathing suit on any highway within this state unless she be escorted by at least two officers or unless she be armed with a club."
Further later amendment reportedly read, "The provisions of this statute shall not apply to females weighing less than 90 pounds nor exceeding 200 pounds, nor shall it apply to male horses."
This law no longer exists, because it was repealed effective January 1, 1975. This is a very common fate of these strange, antiquated laws. In fact, proving their previous existence is difficult because in many cases, the statutes available to the public online are only the current statutes, without prior stricken laws that do not apply. Fortunately, the annals of Kentucky law had record of the repeal, for which the catchline was, fittingly, "Appearing on highway in bathing garb." The record of this repeal may be found on the Kentucky State Legislation website.