Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A law can also be "void for vagueness" if it imposes on First Amendment freedom of speech, assembly, or religion. The "void for vagueness" legal doctrine does not apply to private law (that is, laws that govern rights and obligations as between private parties), only to laws that govern rights and obligations vis-a-vis the government. [citation ...
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. *
People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa and Rappler (R-MNL-19-01141-CR), also known as the Maria Ressa cyberlibel case, is a high-profile criminal case in the Philippines, lodged against Maria Ressa, co-owner and CEO of Rappler Inc.. [2] Accused of cyberlibel, Ressa was found guilty by a Manila Regional Trial Court on June 15, 2020. [3] [4]: 36
The quo warranto petition against Maria Lourdes Sereno, filed before the Supreme Court of the Philippines, led to the landmark case Republic v. Sereno [note 1] (G. R. No. 237428), [3] [4] [5] which nullified Maria Lourdes Sereno's appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, finding that she never lawfully held the office due to a lack of integrity for failing to file ...
On May 16 and 17, 2022, respectively, two post-election petitions to deem Bongbong Marcos disqualified and declare void ab initio his certificate of candidacy in the 2022 Philippine presidential election were filed with the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
League of Cities of the Philippines v. COMELEC is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines about the validity of the cityhood laws of 16 municipalities in the Philippines. The case clarifies the requirements for the conversion of a municipality into a component city. The court in its final decision ruled that the cityhood ...
The rule is today seen as an expression of legislative supremacy. [11] It is infrequently cited in contemporary [clarification needed] opinions. [12] During oral arguments for the 2016 case, Lockhart v. United States, [13] Justice Antonin Scalia sua sponte raised the question of the rule's application: "...what I worry about is the rule of lenity.