Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Vagueness doctrine Women's rights Palendrano , 120 N.J. Super. 336, 293 A.2d 747 (Law Div. 1972), was a legal case decided by the New Jersey Superior Court , Law Division, holding that the common law offense of being a common scold was no longer a crime despite the presence of reception statutes in the state.
The void for vagueness doctrine derives from the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. That is, vague laws unconstitutionally deprive people of their rights without due process. The following pronouncement of the void for vagueness doctrine was made by Justice Sutherland in Connally v.
Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case resulting in a Jacksonville vagrancy ordinance being declared unconstitutionally vague. The case was argued on December 8, 1971, and decided on February 24, 1972. The respondent was the city of Jacksonville, Florida.
However, some "stop and identify" statutes that are unclear about how people must identify themselves violate suspects' due process right through the void for vagueness doctrine. For instance, in Kolender v. Lawson (1983), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a California law requiring "credible and reliable" identification as overly vague. [4]
Case history; Prior: 658 F.2d 1362 (9th Cir. 1981): Holding; The statute, as drafted and as construed by the state court, is unconstitutionally vague on its face within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to clarify what is contemplated by the requirement that a suspect provide a "credible and reliable" identification.
Pages in category "Void for vagueness case law" The following 32 pages are in this category, out of 32 total. This list may not reflect recent changes. *
The Colorado Supreme Court clarified what it called "the Flipside test" for determining the standard of a vagueness review in its 1988 case Parrish v. Lamm . There, two chiropractors had challenged a new state law criminalizing as "abuse of health care" the practice by some health care providers of waiving a patient's health insurance copayment ...
Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case interpreting the honest services fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1346.The case involves former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling and the honest services fraud statute, which prohibits "a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services".