Facial Overbreadth Doctrine

52 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• State v. Dwyer
  332 So. 2d 333· Fla.· 1976-05-05 ·cited 95×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a trial court's dismissal of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest charges, holding that lower federal court decisions are not binding on state courts and that state courts must follow Florida Supreme Court precedent under the doctrine of star
• United States v. Cleveland R. Rodgers
  755 F.2d 533· 7th Cir.· 1985-02-01 ·cited 76×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the denial of a continuance, the conviction on Count III, or the evidentiary rulings.
• Firestone v. News-Press Publ'g Co., Inc.
  538 So. 2d 457· Fla.· 1989-02-02 ·cited 62×
  The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a district court decision striking down a statute prohibiting nonvoters from being within 50 feet of polling places. The Court held that while the statute is unconstitutionally overbroad as applied to the 50-foot zone outside polling rooms (whic
• State v. Elder
  382 So. 2d 687· Fla.· 1980-04-03 ·cited 58×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Fla. Stat. § 365.16(1)(b), which criminalizes anonymous telephone calls made with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass, rejecting the trial court's finding that the statute was facially overbroad under the First Ame
• Gasparinetti v. Kerr
  568 F.2d 311· 3d Cir.· 1977-11-03 ·cited 36×
  The court held that two police department regulations prohibiting derogatory references and censoring official transactions were unconstitutionally overbroad. It also found a third regulation prohibiting public disparagement to be unconstitutionally overbroad. The court reversed
• C. D. (Denny) Abbott v. Thetford
  529 F.2d 695· 5th Cir.· 1976-04-02 ·cited 32×
• J-R Distribs., Inc. v. Eikenberry
  725 F.2d 482· 9th Cir.· 1984-02-06 ·cited 30×
  The majority opinion is flawed in holding that the use of the word 'lust' in defining prurient interest renders a statute facially overbroad under the First Amendment.
• Aiello v. The City OF Wilmington
  623 F.2d 845· 3d Cir.· 1980-05-01 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the First Amendment 'chill' claim because it applied an incorrect legal standard regarding standing and the subjective nature of chilling effects.
• Felix v. Coleman A. Young
  536 F.2d 1126· 6th Cir.· 1976-06-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the challenged ordinance is facially unconstitutional because it is overbroad and fails to specifically define the sexual conduct it seeks to regulate.
• City OF Pompano Beach v. Capalbo
  455 So. 2d 468· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-08-08 ·cited 25×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal held that Pompano Beach's ordinance prohibiting sleeping in vehicles is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The ordinance failed to provide law enforcement with minimal guidelines, leaving arrest decisions to police discretion, and crimina
• Carlson v. Schlesinger
  511 F.2d 1327· D.C. Cir.· 1975-04-25 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the arrests of servicemen for petitioning in a combat zone without prior approval were valid, and the commanders' denial of permission was reasonable, thus reversing the district court's judgment.
• Wells v. State
  364 So. 3d 1005· Fla.· 2023-04-13 ·cited 21×
  William E. Wells III, serving multiple life sentences for prior murders, was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for killing fellow inmate William Chapman in a premeditated, brutal attack. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and death sentence, r
• United States v. Douglass
  579 F.2d 545· 9th Cir.· 1978-08-04 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the appellant's reentry onto the military reservation, even to use a public phone booth outside the main fence but within a marked boundary, constituted a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1382, and the statute was constitutional as applied.
• M.R. Ferguson v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  718 F.2d 730· 5th Cir.· 1983-10-31 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the Texas Anti-Riot Law, as construed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, is not facially overbroad or vague, and its vicarious criminal responsibility provision satisfies due process.
• Wilson v. Stocker
  819 F.2d 943· 10th Cir.· 1987-05-14 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the Oklahoma statute prohibiting anonymous campaign literature distribution is facially overbroad and violates the First Amendment, and that attorney's fees were properly awarded under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
• LeFLORE v. Robinson
  434 F.2d 933· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-12 ·cited 17×
  The court held that certain Mobile ordinances were facially unconstitutional due to vagueness and overbreadth, violating First Amendment rights, and that abstention was inappropriate.
• Hill v. The City OF Houston
  789 F.2d 1103· 5th Cir.· 1986-05-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the ordinance is facially and substantially overbroad, violating the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech, and thus is unconstitutional.
• State v. Sawyer
  346 So. 2d 1071· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-06-07 ·cited 14×
  Florida's state prosecutor sought to overturn a circuit court's reversal of a conviction under Dade County's loitering ordinance, which prohibited knowingly loitering with persons possessing or using narcotics. The court held the ordinance constitutional, rejecting the circuit co
• LeFLORE v. Robinson
  446 F.2d 715· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-25 ·cited 14×
  The court vacated its original opinion and remanded for reconsideration in light of recent Supreme Court decisions regarding federal interference with state prosecutions.
• Walker v. The Hon. George B. Dillard
  523 F.2d 3· 4th Cir.· 1975-07-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Virginia statute is facially overbroad and cannot be enforced as written because it infringes upon constitutionally protected speech.
• Wurtz v. Risley
  719 F.2d 1438· 9th Cir.· 1983-11-08 ·cited 11×
  The Montana intimidation statute is unconstitutionally overbroad on its face because it sweeps too broadly into protected speech, chilling legitimate expression.
• Comstock v. United States
  419 F.2d 1128· 9th Cir.· 1969-12-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Washington unlawful assembly statute is not unconstitutional on its face, as its terms have well-established common law definitions and can be constitutionally interpreted.
• State v. T.B.D.
  656 So. 2d 479· Fla.· 1995-06-15 ·cited 8×
  Florida Statute § 876.18, prohibiting the unauthorized placing of a burning or flaming cross on another's property, is constitutional because it regulates conduct that constitutes threats of violence and fighting words, categories of speech with no essential value to the expositi
• Hill v. The City OF Houston
  764 F.2d 1156· 5th Cir.· 1985-07-11 ·cited 8×
  The dissent argues that the Houston ordinance was constitutionally applied to Raymond Hill, as his speech did not outweigh the city's interest in law enforcement and was not substantially protected by the First Amendment.
• Forest Hills Early Learning Ctr., Inc. v. Lukhard
  728 F.2d 230· 4th Cir.· 1984-02-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the statutory exemption for religiously affiliated child care centers from general licensing requirements is facially overbroad as a permissible accommodation to free exercise rights, and thus summary judgment for the state was improper.
• Turchick v. United States
  561 F.2d 719· 8th Cir.· 1977-04-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that 50 U.S.C. App. § 462(a) is not unconstitutionally overbroad on its face, as its plainly legitimate sweep is substantial and impermissible applications are few.
• Parkerson v. State
  163 So. 3d 683· Fla. 4th DCA· 2015-04-29 ·cited 7×
  Kenneth Parkerson appealed his convictions for burglary with intent to commit video voyeurism and voyeurism, arguing the underlying statutes were facially overbroad under the First Amendment. The Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding the voyeurism and vi
• McGUIRE v. State
  489 So. 2d 729· Fla.· 1986-06-12 ·cited 7×
  Belinda McGuire was arrested for jogging topless on a public beach and challenged the administrative rule requiring bathing costumes to conform to 'commonly accepted standards' as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the rule and conviction, ho
• Kramer v. Price
  712 F.2d 174· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-15 ·cited 7×
  The Texas Harassment Statute is unconstitutionally void for vagueness because it fails to provide reasonably clear guidelines for prohibited conduct and encourages arbitrary enforcement.
• Community FOR Creative Non-Violence v. Turner
  D.D.C.· 1990-01-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that WMATA's permit requirement for free speech activities is facially overbroad and thus invalid under the First Amendment.
• Jurline Gates v. The City OF Dallas
  729 F.2d 343· 5th Cir.· 1984-04-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the City of Dallas did not unconstitutionally inhibit First Amendment rights by charging individuals with perjury or filing a false report for complaints administratively determined to be false. The Constitution protects honest misstatements, not knowing false
• Cheshire Bridge Holdings, LLC v. City of Atlanta
  15 F.4th 1362· 11th Cir.· 2021-10-19 ·cited 5×
  Cheshire Bridge Holdings, LLC, which operated an adult novelty and video store, challenged Atlanta's zoning regulations defining and restricting "adult businesses" as facially overbroad under the First Amendment. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's
• J.L.S. v. State
  947 So. 2d 641· Fla. 3d DCA· 2007-01-24 ·cited 5×
  J.L.S., a juvenile, challenged his delinquency adjudication for trespass in a school safety zone under Florida Statute § 810.0975(2)(b) on facial constitutional grounds. The court rejected overbreadth, vagueness, and substantive due process challenges, affirming that the statute
• Versarge v. The Twp. OF Clinton NEW Jersey
  984 F.2d 1359· 3d Cir.· 1993-02-02 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the plaintiff's speech, motivated by personal animosity and causing significant disruption within the volunteer fire company, was not protected by the First Amendment, and thus his expulsion was permissible.
• Am. Booksellers Ass'n, Inc. v. Commonwealth OF Va.
  792 F.2d 1261· 4th Cir.· 1986-06-12 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the Virginia amendment restricting display of sexually explicit material to juveniles was facially unconstitutional as overbroad and a violation of the First Amendment, and that plaintiffs were entitled to attorneys' fees.
• United States v. Austin
  902 F.2d 743· 9th Cir.· 1990-05-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) is not unconstitutionally overbroad or vague as applied to the defendant, and the prosecution was not vindictive.
• United States v. Billie
  667 F. Supp. 1485· S.D. Fla.· 1987-08-24 ·cited 4×
  The Endangered Species Act applies to non-commercial hunting by Indians on reservations, and the Act does not require specific intent to violate its provisions.
• Labriola v. Miami-Dade Cnty.
  142 F.4th 1305· 11th Cir.· 2025-07-03 ·cited 3×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that the County's interest in efficient operations outweighed the employee's free speech interests, and that the employee's other claims also failed.
• Meinecke v. State
  351 So. 3d 1196· Fla. 2d DCA· 2022-11-30 ·cited 3×
  The appellate court affirmed a defendant's convictions for trespass in a school safety zone and disruption of a school function. The court rejected the defendant's arguments that the statutes were unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, finding they were narrowly tailored to prote
• United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l Union, AFL-CIO v. IBP, Inc.
  857 F.2d 422· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-08 ·cited 3×
  The plaintiff unions' challenge to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-1317(1)(a) does not present a justiciable claim because there is no evidence of actual or threatened enforcement of that specific provision.
• Bruno v. Marcel Garsaud, Jr.
  594 F.2d 1062· 5th Cir.· 1979-05-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Louisiana constitutional and statutory provisions prohibiting political activity by classified civil service employees were not unconstitutional as applied or facially vague/overbroad.
• Dachsteiner v. United States
  W.D. Pa.· 1975-04-28 ·cited 2×
• N.D. v. State
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2020-11-04
  Section 836.10(1), Florida Statutes, is not unconstitutionally overbroad as applied because Florida law presumes criminal statutes include a mens rea element absent express legislative statement to the contrary, and courts must construe statutes to avoid unconstitutional outcomes
• Sawyer v. State
  45 Fla. Supp. 22· Fla. Cir. Ct.· 1977-01-24
  A county ordinance criminalizing loitering with knowledge of drug possession is unconstitutional and invalid as facially overbroad.