Overbreadth Doctrine

1,059 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 99 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Women Strike for Peace v. Rogers C. B. Morton
  472 F.2d 1273· D.C. Cir.· 1972-07-14 ·cited 32×
  The court held that park regulations prohibiting display structures except for NPS events are unconstitutionally discriminatory and overbroad, but affirmed the denial of a permit for a display within the central circular area due to potential interference.
• United States v. Tomasetta
  429 F.2d 978· 1st Cir.· 1970-07-20 ·cited 32×·via Constitutional Overbreadth
  The court held that the indictment was fatally deficient for failing to name the victim and specify the extortionate means and location with sufficient detail, thus preventing the defendant from adequately preparing a defense.
• Donnell Douglas v. Sigler
  386 F.2d 684· 8th Cir.· 1967-11-28 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a state statute allowing for diminution of sentence based on good behavior is a conditional grant, not a vested right, and its forfeiture does not raise a federal constitutional issue unless administrative due process is violated.
• Schwartzmiller v. Darrol Gardner
  752 F.2d 1341· 9th Cir.· 1984-12-20 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the statute was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the defendant's conduct, but reversed the district court's finding of facial vagueness.
• M.S. News Co. a Kan. Corp. v. Casado
  721 F.2d 1281· 10th Cir.· 1983-11-16 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the Wichita ordinance prohibiting the promotion of sexually oriented materials to minors is constitutional, rejecting claims of overbreadth, vagueness, equal protection violation, prior restraint, and Sixth Amendment jury trial infringement.
• Hirschkop v. Hon. Harold F. Snead
  594 F.2d 356· 4th Cir.· 1979-03-02 ·cited 31×
  The court concurred with the majority opinion, finding that the state's interest in protecting the integrity of the judicial process, beyond individual fair trial rights, justifies certain restrictions on lawyer speech.
• Community-Service Broad. OF Mid-America, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States
  593 F.2d 1102· D.C. Cir.· 1978-08-25 ·cited 31×
  The statute is valid and should be given its plain reading, and the court should not issue an advisory opinion based on speculative fears of misuse.
• State v. Joyce
  361 So. 2d 406· Fla.· 1978-07-27 ·cited 31×
  Section 827.04(2), Florida Statutes, criminalizing willful or culpably negligent deprivation of necessary food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment, or knowingly or culpably negligently permitting material endangerment of a child's physical or mental health, is not unconstitu
• Alachua Cnty. v. Scharps
  855 So. 2d 195· Fla. 1st DCA· 2003-09-12 ·cited 30×
  Alachua County challenges a trial court judgment invalidating a county resolution directing a referendum on universal healthcare to be placed on the November 2000 general election ballot. The appellate court reverses, holding that the plaintiff-appellee lacked standing to challen
• 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.
• Hall v. Bd. OF Sch. Comm'rs OF Mobile Cnty.
  681 F.2d 965· 5th Cir.· 1982-08-02 ·cited 30×
  The court held that school policies regulating literature distribution (KIA and KIB) were unconstitutional both facially and as applied due to vagueness and overbreadth, but policies regulating visitors (KM and GBRBB) were not facially unconstitutional.
• Aikens v. Jenkins
  534 F.2d 751· 7th Cir.· 1976-04-14 ·cited 30×
  Statewide prison literature censorship regulations were held facially invalid as overbroad and not narrowly tailored to serve legitimate penological interests.
• United States ex rel. Frank Stachulak v. Coughlin
  520 F.2d 931· 7th Cir.· 1975-08-06 ·cited 30×
  Due process requires that the state prove a person is sexually dangerous beyond a reasonable doubt for commitment under the Illinois Sexually Dangerous Persons Act.
• United States v. Ramsey
  503 F.2d 524· 7th Cir.· 1974-08-06 ·cited 30×
  Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 is not unconstitutional on its face, and the appellant lacked standing to challenge the minimization requirement of the wiretap order.
• United States v. Mechanic
  454 F.2d 849· 8th Cir.· 1971-12-22 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the anti-riot statute is constitutional and applies to acts obstructing law enforcement during a civil disorder affecting federally protected functions, and that the prosecution did not violate double jeopardy principles.
• Am. Booksellers v. Webb
  919 F.2d 1493· 11th Cir.· 1990-12-27 ·cited 29×
  The majority's interpretation of the statute to permit booksellers to avoid criminal penalties by using 'blinder racks' is not reasonable given the statutory language.
• Solomon v. City OF Gainesville
  763 F.2d 1212· 11th Cir.· 1985-06-21 ·cited 29×
  The court held that Section 29-100(b)(2) of the Gainesville Sign Ordinance is facially unconstitutional due to overbreadth and vagueness, and that the petitioner has standing to challenge it.
• Sellers v. The Regents OF the Univ. OF Cal.
  432 F.2d 493· 9th Cir.· 1970-09-17 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint, refusing to convene a three-judge court, as there was no genuine threat of irreparable harm or chilling effect on First Amendment rights to warrant injunctive relief.
• Father Nathaniel MacHesky v. Honorable William H. Bizzell
  414 F.2d 283· 5th Cir.· 1969-06-05 ·cited 29×
• SDJ, Inc. v. The City OF Houston
  837 F.2d 1268· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-10 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the City of Houston's ordinance regulating sexually oriented businesses, as applied to topless bars, is constitutional under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments and does not conflict with state law.
• S. Fla. Free Beaches, Inc. v. City OF Miami
  734 F.2d 608· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-18 ·cited 28×
  The court held that nude sunbathing is not a form of expression protected by the First Amendment and is therefore subject to governmental proscriptions.
• 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.
• United States v. Groner
  494 F.2d 499· 5th Cir.· 1974-05-24 ·cited 28×·via Statutory Overbreadth
  The court held that the defendant's convictions for transporting obscene materials were valid, affirming the prior judgment.
• State v. Nell Emerson Mayhew
  288 So. 2d 243· Fla.· 1973-12-19 ·cited 28×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed the trial court's dismissal of an indictment charging profane language and resisting arrest, holding that Florida's profane language statute (Fla.Stat. § 847.04) is constitutional and not impermissibly vague, overbroad, or violative of First Ame
• Amos Witherspoon v. State
  278 So. 2d 611· Fla.· 1973-05-30 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the words 'unnatural and lascivious' in Fla.Stat. § 800.02 are not unconstitutionally vague.
• United States v. Crosson
  462 F.2d 96· 9th Cir.· 1972-05-26 ·cited 28×·via Statutory Overbreadth
  A conviction for contemptuously burning a flag under 18 U.S.C. § 700 violates the First Amendment because the statute and prosecution are aimed at suppressing communicative expression, not regulating non-communicative conduct.
• Long Island Vietnam Moratorium Comm. v. Cahn
  437 F.2d 344· 2d Cir.· 1970-12-24 ·cited 28×
  New York General Business Law § 136(a) is unconstitutional on its face and as applied because it is overbroad, vague, and infringes upon First Amendment rights by prohibiting a wide range of expressive conduct involving the American flag.
• Columbia Hosp. Corp. OF S. Broward v. Fain
  16 So. 3d 236· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-08-19 ·cited 27×
  Columbia Hospital Corporation challenged a trial court's discovery order requiring production of adverse medical incident reports under Florida's Amendment 7 constitutional provision. The Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's order, rejecting Columbia's argumen
• United States v. Gilbert
  813 F.2d 1523· 9th Cir.· 1987-04-06 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the Fair Housing Act's prohibition against intimidation extends to an adoption agency director's efforts to place minority children in dwellings, and that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the indictment with prejudice without sufficient c
• Quincy Cable TV, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States
  768 F.2d 1434· D.C. Cir.· 1985-07-19 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the FCC's mandatory carriage or 'must-carry' rules for cable television violate the First Amendment rights of cable operators, programmers, and the public.
• Zook v. Brown
  748 F.2d 1161· 7th Cir.· 1984-11-14 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and that one of the departmental rules was facially valid, but remanded for further factual development on other claims.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Elrod
  674 F.2d 601· 7th Cir.· 1982-03-16 ·cited 27×
  The court's majority opinion, which the dissenter disagrees with, likely upheld the EEOC's broad subpoena for personnel records related to mandatory retirement policies.
• United States v. Matya
  541 F.2d 741· 8th Cir.· 1976-09-09 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the wiretap affidavit sufficiently met the necessity requirements, the failure to cite a specific state statute was not a fatal defect, the state gambling statute was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad as applied to the defendants, and the evidence was
• Dream Defenders v. Governor of the State of Fla.
  57 F.4th 879· 11th Cir.· 2023-01-10 ·cited 26×
  The Eleventh Circuit certified a question about the interpretation of Florida's riot statute to the Florida Supreme Court, finding it appropriate to allow the state court to interpret the law before ruling on its constitutionality.
• The Honorable Alcee L. Hastings v. Judicial Conference of the United States
  770 F.2d 1093· D.C. Cir.· 1985-08-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that adjudication of the appellant's claims challenging the facial constitutionality of the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (Count One) and its application to him (Count Two) was premature, while affirming the dismissal of t
• Tobacco Accessories & Novelty Craftsmen Merchs. Ass'n OF La. v. Treen
  681 F.2d 378· 5th Cir.· 1982-07-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that Louisiana's Drug Paraphernalia Law is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, and is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
• Keego Harbor Co. v. City OF Keego Harbor
  657 F.2d 94· 6th Cir.· 1981-08-12 ·cited 26×
  A zoning ordinance that effectively bans adult movie theaters from a town abridges the First Amendment because the town has not met its burden of justifying the restrictions on protected speech.
• RED Bluff Drive-In, Inc. v. Vance
  648 F.2d 1020· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that while most provisions of the Texas obscenity statute are constitutional, abstention is appropriate for three specific provisions pending state court interpretation to avoid premature constitutional adjudication.
• Spiegel v. City OF Houston
  636 F.2d 997· 5th Cir.· 1981-02-09 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was overly broad and reversed its issuance, remanding for revision.
• Am. Sec. Council Educ. Found. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States
  607 F.2d 438· D.C. Cir.· 1979-06-29 ·cited 26×
  The court did not reach the merits of applying the fairness doctrine to daily news coverage, agreeing with the lower court's assessment of the complaint's inadequacies.
• Linville v. State
  359 So. 2d 450· Fla.· 1978-05-18 ·cited 26×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that Section 877.11, Florida Statutes (1975), prohibiting inhalation of harmful chemical substances, is unconstitutionally vague on its face because the definition of "chemical substance" is so broad that a person of common intelligence cannot disce
• Adamian v. Jacobsen
  523 F.2d 929· 9th Cir.· 1975-09-24 ·cited 26×
  The court held that while the University Code's section 2.3 may be facially overbroad, its interpretation by the American Association of University Professors, which the University likely adopted, narrows its scope to avoid unconstitutional infringement on First Amendment rights.
• United States v. Goeltz
  513 F.2d 193· 10th Cir.· 1975-03-21 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the defendants' possession of simulated IRS seizure notices violated 18 U.S.C. § 701, and their constitutional challenges regarding jury trial, vagueness, First Amendment rights, arrest, speedy trial, and judicial conduct were without merit.
• Tornillo v. The Miami Herald Publ'g Co.
  287 So. 2d 78· Fla.· 1973-07-18 ·cited 26×
  Pat Tornillo, a legislative candidate, sought to compel the Miami Herald to publish his replies to editorials attacking his character under Florida Statute 104.38, a right-of-reply law. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the statute as constitutional, holding that it enhances rathe
• In re Certain Complaints Under Investigation BY AN Investigating Comm. OF the Jud. Council OF the Eleventh Cir. Betty Ann Williams & Alan Ehrlich v. Mercer
  783 F.2d 1488· 11th Cir.· 1986-02-20 ·cited 25×
  The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has exclusive original jurisdiction to enforce or quash subpoenas issued under the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, and the Act's subpoena provisions are constitutional.
• In re Forfeiture OF ONE Cessna 337H Aircraft. City OF Pompano Beach v. Enroute Ltd., Inc.
  475 So. 2d 1269· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-08-28 ·cited 25×·via Unconstitutional Overbreadth
  The court held that an aircraft used in violation of section 329.10, Florida Statutes, is not subject to forfeiture under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act because the aircraft is not an 'instrumentality' of the offense.
• City OF Pompano Beach v. Capalbo
  455 So. 2d 468· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-08-08 ·cited 25×·via Facial Overbreadth Doctrine
  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
• Martin Tractor Co. v. Fed. Election Comm'n
  627 F.2d 375· D.C. Cir.· 1980-05-08 ·cited 25×·via Statutory Overbreadth
  The court held that the challenges to the Federal Election Campaign Act's provisions restricting solicitation by corporate political action committees were not ripe for adjudication, either on their face or as applied.
• Salem INN, Inc. v. Frank
  501 F.2d 18· 2d Cir.· 1974-06-25 ·cited 25×
  The court held that federal courts should not intervene in pending state criminal prosecutions absent a showing of bad faith, harassment, or other special circumstances, even if the federal suit was filed first.