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

• Smith v. Gladden
  321 F.2d 816· 9th Cir.· 1963-08-13
  The court held that the Oregon statute is not unconstitutionally vague.
• United States v. Martin
  292 F.2d 702· 4th Cir.· 1961-06-23 ·via Vagueness
  A defendant cannot collaterally attack an indictment under Rule 35 for vagueness if the indictment generally discloses the nature of the offense and the defendant failed to raise the issue directly.
• City of Miami v. Forbes
  17 Fla. Supp. 153· Dade Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1960-11-29
  This case involves challenges to Miami city ordinances prohibiting strip-tease performances and related indecent conduct. The court partially reversed convictions, holding that certain ordinance provisions violated due process requirements for specificity in criminal charges and
• City of Miami Beach v. Bennett
  16 Fla. Supp. 82· Dade Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1960-03-31
  The court held that the city ordinance prohibiting obscene literature was unconstitutional for failing to establish a clear standard for obscenity and for lacking a scienter requirement.
• Naumu v. Territory OF Hawaii
  273 F.2d 568· 9th Cir.· 1959-12-21 ·via Void For Vagueness Doctrine
  The court held that the operation of a pinball machine awarding free games is a violation of Hawaii's gambling statute, and the statute as applied is not void for indefiniteness.
• Rustad v. United States
  258 F.2d 563· 9th Cir.· 1958-06-30
• City of ST. Petersburg v. Allen
  3 Fla. Supp. 153· Pinellas Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1953-04-10
  A municipal ordinance defining disorderly conduct is invalid if it does not sufficiently define the prohibited conduct, as such vagueness grants excessive discretion and risks abuse.
• Culhane v. Clark
  162 F.2d 736· Emer. Ct. App.· 1947-06-18 ·via Vagueness and Indefiniteness
  The court held that Maximum Price Regulation 193 applied to sales of warehouse receipts for whiskey, and the regulation was not void for vagueness or failure to state parity considerations.