context: In our weighing the ordinance in this case and the Supreme Court's reasoning in upholding a similar ordinance, we conclude that the Federal rule does not adequately protect the rights of the citizens of Massachusetts under art. 16. Not surprisingly, other State Supreme Courts have come to the same conclusion.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.parenthetical: on remand from United States Supreme Court, court held complete ban on topless dancing in establishments serving alcohol invalid on State constitutional grounds
citation_a.sentence: See also Mickens v. Kodiak, 640 P.2d 818, 821- 823 (Alaska 1982) (citing Commonwealth v. Sees, supra, court held ordinance prohibiting nude performances violates State Constitution even if not First Amendment); Bellanca v. New York State Liquor Auth., 54 N.Y.2d 228, 234-236 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1006 (1982) (on remand from United States Supreme Court, court held complete ban on topless dancing in establishments serving alcohol invalid on State constitutional grounds).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 571 Pa. 375, 394
citation_b.parenthetical: on remand from United States Supreme Court, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held Erie ordinance invalid on State constitutional grounds
citation_b.sentence: See Pap’s A.M. v. Erie, 571 Pa. 375, 394 (2002) (on remand from United States Supreme Court, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held Erie ordinance invalid on State constitutional grounds).