Vagueness Doctrine

1,231 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 996 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Pacifica Found. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States
  556 F.2d 9· D.C. Cir.· 1977-03-16 ·cited 18×
  The FCC's order banning the broadcast of 'indecent' language, even when children might be in the audience, is reversed because it violates the statutory prohibition against censorship and is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague.
• United States v. Hilario Gonzalez-Hernandez
  534 F.2d 1353· 9th Cir.· 1976-04-13 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the statute prohibiting the transportation of illegal aliens is constitutional and applies even when the aliens are already within the country and seeking employment.
• United States v. Park
  521 F.2d 1381· 9th Cir.· 1975-09-15 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court's violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 by reading the pre-sentencing report before determining guilt mandates reversal. The court also found the statute 18 U.S.C. § 1791 and its implementing regulations constitutional.
• United States v. Simpson
  481 F.2d 582· 5th Cir.· 1973-06-29 ·cited 18×·via Vagueness Challenge
  The court held that the imposition of a special parole term under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) does not violate the Fifth Amendment due process clause or the Eighth Amendment, and that challenges to the specific conditions or supervision of parole are not ripe for adjudication before
• City OF ST. Petersburg v. Waller
  261 So. 2d 151· Fla.· 1972-04-12 ·cited 18×·via Void For Vagueness Doctrine
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld St. Petersburg's ordinance prohibiting verbal abuse of police officers, reversing the District Court's finding that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The court held that the word "pig" directed at officers through a megapho
• United States v. Johnson
  441 F.2d 1134· 5th Cir.· 1971-04-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the National Firearms Act of 1968, specifically 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), does not violate the privilege against self-incrimination, the right to bear arms, or is not unconstitutionally vague.
• Rev. Robert Hunter v. Allen
  422 F.2d 1158· 5th Cir.· 1970-01-20 ·cited 18×
• Nat'l Mobilization Comm. TO END The WAR IN Viet NAM v. Foran
  411 F.2d 934· 7th Cir.· 1969-05-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' attack on the constitutionality of the Civil Disorders and Riot provisions of the Criminal Code did not present a substantial constitutional question requiring a three-judge district court.
• Wright v. The City OF Montgomery
  406 F.2d 867· 5th Cir.· 1969-01-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Montgomery ordinances for Disorderly Conduct, Loitering, and Failure to Obey are constitutional on their face, as interpreted by Alabama courts, and thus federal injunctive relief is not warranted.
• Weissman v. United States
  373 F.2d 799· 9th Cir.· 1967-02-17 ·cited 18×·via Void For Vagueness Doctrine
  The court held that the phrase 'user of narcotic drugs' in 18 U.S.C. § 1407 is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to provide a sufficiently clear standard of conduct.
• United States v. Bennett Goldberg
  225 F.2d 180· 8th Cir.· 1955-08-08 ·cited 18×
  The majority opinion held that the regulation prohibiting the reuse of liquor containers was intended to apply only to the addition of other taxable substances, not water.
• Romero v. People of Puerto RICO
  182 F.2d 864· 1st Cir.· 1950-06-16 ·cited 18×·via Void For Vagueness Doctrine
  The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because no substantial federal question was properly raised or decided below, and the court must accept the Insular Supreme Court's interpretation of local law.
• H.A.P. v. State
  834 So. 2d 237· Fla. 3d DCA· 2002-11-06 ·cited 17×
  A juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for resisting a law enforcement officer without violence under Florida Statute § 843.02 after he refused repeated orders to leave the area where SWAT officers were executing a narcotics search warrant. The court affirmed, holding that the juv
• Navarrion Johnson v. State
  701 So. 2d 367· Fla. 2d DCA· 1997-10-24 ·cited 17×·via Vagueness Of Statutes
  Navarrion Johnson appealed his conviction and sentence for home invasion robbery, challenging certain probation conditions. The court affirmed his conviction and sentence but struck the $100 investigative cost and clarified that a probation condition prohibiting possession of dru
• L.B. v. State
  681 So. 2d 1179· Fla. 2d DCA· 1996-10-16 ·cited 17×·via Void For Vagueness Doctrine
  A juvenile was convicted of possessing a weapon on school property under Florida law, which contained an exception for "common pocketknives." The appellate court held that the "common pocketknife" exception was unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause and struck it f
• Quinn v. State
  662 So. 2d 947· Fla. 5th DCA· 1995-07-14 ·cited 17×
  Edward Quinn was convicted of conspiring to fraudulently represent his business as a socially and economically disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) to obtain preferential contracting opportunities with the Florida Department of Transportation. The Florida appellate court affir
• Hermanson v. State
  604 So. 2d 775· Fla.· 1992-07-02 ·cited 17×
  The Florida Supreme Court quashed convictions of Christian Science parents for child abuse and third-degree murder in the death of their daughter from untreated diabetes, holding that Florida's statutory scheme created an unconstitutional trap by appearing to permit spiritual tre
• Deutscher v. Harol Whitley
  884 F.2d 1152· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-31 ·cited 17×·via Constitutional Vagueness
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition and that the petitioner was deprived of effective assistance of counsel due to counsel's failure to investigate and present mitigating evidence at the penalty phase.
• Ass'n OF Cmty. Orgs. FOR Reform NOW v. Municipality OF Golden
  744 F.2d 739· 10th Cir.· 1984-09-24 ·cited 17×
• Magalene Harper v. Lindsay
  616 F.2d 849· 5th Cir.· 1980-05-09 ·cited 17×
  Most of Harris County's massage parlor regulations are constitutional, but the provision requiring a six-inch by six-inch unobstructed opening on interior doors is an unconstitutional exercise of police power.
• Moffett v. State
  340 So. 2d 1155· Fla.· 1976-10-14 ·cited 17×
  Florida's disorderly conduct statute prohibiting acts that corrupt public morals or outrage public decency is constitutional as applied to adult females appearing topless in public places, including public beaches.
• United States v. NEW Orleans Book Mart, Inc.
  490 F.2d 73· 5th Cir.· 1974-02-19 ·cited 17×·via Void For Vagueness Doctrine
  Convictions for transporting obscene material interstate are affirmed, as the materials fall within the legal parameters of obscenity under both prior and subsequent standards.
• State v. Penley
  276 So. 2d 180· Fla. 2d DCA· 1973-04-11 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the St. Petersburg City Ordinance 22.57 is unconstitutional due to vagueness and potential for arbitrary enforcement.
• United States v. Hymans
  463 F.2d 615· 10th Cir.· 1972-07-07 ·cited 17×
  Nudity under the circumstances of public sunbathing in a designated recreation area constitutes "indecent conduct" under the regulation, and the regulation is not void for vagueness nor beyond the Secretary's delegated authority.
• United States v. Featherston
  461 F.2d 1119· 5th Cir.· 1972-05-25 ·cited 17×
• 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.
• Fort Lauderdale Food Not Bombs v. City of Fort Lauderdale
  11 F.4th 1266· 11th Cir.· 2021-08-31 ·cited 16×
  Fort Lauderdale Food Not Bombs challenged city ordinances and park rules that effectively prohibited food-sharing demonstrations by requiring permits subject to standardless official discretion. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that while the city had legitimate interes
• State v. Rubio
  967 So. 2d 768· Fla.· 2007-07-12 ·cited 16×
  The Florida Supreme Court addressed whether the Medicaid provider fraud statute and patient brokering statute were constitutional, whether multiple patient brokering charges were multiplicitous, and whether patient brokering could serve as a predicate for racketeering and white c
• McGREGOR v. State
  789 So. 2d 976· Fla.· 2001-07-12 ·cited 16×·via Void For Vagueness Doctrine
  The court held that the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act does not require proof of a defendant's release to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, as it limits sentencing discretion rather than increasing the statutory maximum penalty.
• Barr v. State
  731 So. 2d 126· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-04-21 ·cited 16×·via Void For Vagueness Doctrine
  Two chiropractors challenged Florida's statute prohibiting solicitation of motor vehicle accident victims for insurance claims as unconstitutionally overbroad, vague, and violative of due process and equal protection. The court upheld the statute as a valid restriction on commerc
• Jennings v. State
  667 So. 2d 442· Fla. 1st DCA· 1996-01-26 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the phrase '12 a.m.' in the statute, when read in context with the legislative intent to protect school children, unambiguously refers to midnight, thus the statute is not unconstitutionally vague.
• United States v. Allison
  953 F.2d 870· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of sentencing provisions due to his sentence falling within a more lenient range, and that the methamphetamine was properly classified and seized. The court also affirmed the jury instructions an
• United States v. Cherry
  938 F.2d 748· 7th Cir.· 1991-07-26 ·cited 16×·via Void For Vagueness Doctrine
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the statute was not void for vagueness as applied, the victim's statements were admissible hearsay, and the sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice was proper.
• Kucharek v. Hanaway
  902 F.2d 513· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that Wisconsin's obscenity statute is not unconstitutionally vague or a denial of equal protection, and therefore the injunction against its enforcement should be dissolved.
• Racich v. The Celotex Corp.
  887 F.2d 393· 2d Cir.· 1989-10-05 ·cited 16×·via Vagueness Challenge
  The court held that punitive damages were permissible under New York's revival statute and that the award was not tainted by improper remarks, nor did it violate constitutional due process protections that were properly preserved.
• United States v. Facchini
  874 F.2d 638· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-09 ·cited 16×
• United States v. Thomas
  864 F.2d 188· D.C. Cir.· 1988-12-30 ·cited 16×·via Void For Vagueness Doctrine
  The court held that the Park Service regulation prohibiting camping was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the Thomases, and that substantial evidence supported their convictions for violating the regulation.
• State v. Peters
  534 So. 2d 760· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-11-15 ·cited 16×
  Florida's Third District Court of Appeal upheld the City of North Miami's pit bull ordinance requiring owners to obtain $300,000 insurance, register their dogs, and confine them, rejecting constitutional challenges based on equal protection, due process, and vagueness grounds. Th
• Felmeister v. Off. OF Attorney Ethics
  856 F.2d 529· 3d Cir.· 1988-08-31 ·cited 16×·via Constitutional Vagueness
  The court held that the case was not ripe for adjudication because the plaintiffs had not yet sought an advisory opinion from the New Jersey Committee on Attorney Advertising regarding their proposed advertisements, and thus, the administrative process had not been exhausted.
• United States v. Morison
  844 F.2d 1057· 4th Cir.· 1988-04-01 ·cited 16×·via Vagueness
  The court holds that the Espionage Act statutes can be constitutionally applied to press leakers when jury instructions sufficiently flesh out the "relating to the national defense" element.
• Tollis Inc. v. SAN Bernardino Cnty.
  827 F.2d 1329· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-14 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the district court's injunction, holding that the ordinance, as interpreted by the County to include any theater showing an adult movie even once, was not narrowly tailored to serve a substantial government interest.
• Lenson A. Hargrave v. Louie L. Wainwright
  804 F.2d 1182· 11th Cir.· 1986-11-03 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas petition, finding that the petitioner's claims were either procedurally defaulted or distinguishable from controlling precedent.
• Finzer v. Barry
  798 F.2d 1450· D.C. Cir.· 1986-08-19 ·cited 16×·via Vagueness
  The dissent argues that the statute's ban on demonstrations that hold foreign governments up to public odium or disrepute violates the First Amendment because the asserted interest in preserving embassy 'dignity' is not a compelling interest sufficient to override free speech rig
• 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.
• Hudson v. United States
  766 F.2d 1288· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the taxpayer's return was frivolous and the Commissioner properly assessed a penalty under Section 6702, affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment.
• United States v. Jordan
  747 F.2d 1120· 7th Cir.· 1984-10-17 ·cited 16×·via Void For Vagueness Doctrine
  The court should have granted the writ of habeas corpus and released the petitioner unless the state trial court articulated compelling reasons for holding him to bail he could not meet.
• United States v. Bi-Co Pavers, Inc.
  741 F.2d 730· 5th Cir.· 1984-09-04 ·cited 16×·via Vagueness
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding jury instructions, evidence admission, or sufficiency of evidence, and that the defendant's arguments for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence or Brady violations were without merit.
• Transgulf Pipeline Company/Department OF Community Affairs v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Gadsden Cnty.
  438 So. 2d 876· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-09-13 ·cited 16×
  Transgulf Pipeline Company and the State of Florida appealed a circuit court order finding Florida Statutes section 380.07(3) facially unconstitutional on delegation of power and vagueness grounds. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the statute, when proper
• In re Petition for Naturalization of Charles Peter Duncan. Charles Peter Duncan v. United States
  713 F.2d 538· 9th Cir.· 1983-08-19 ·cited 16×·via Vagueness
  The court held that the doctrine of issue preclusion barred the relitigation of constitutional issues decided in a prior naturalization proceeding, even when fundamental rights are involved.
• Stoianoff v. State OF Mont.
  695 F.2d 1214· 9th Cir.· 1983-01-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the advertising prohibition of the Montana Drug Paraphernalia statute, and affirmed the district court's decision on other portions of the statute.