Void For Vagueness Doctrine

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

• United States v. Ortiz
  738 F. Supp. 1394· S.D. Fla.· 1990-06-01 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the Money Laundering Control Act (18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(ii)) is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the defendant's alleged conduct. The court also held that the defendant could be charged with both money laundering and failure to file a CMIR report
• United Union OF Roofers v. Meese
  823 F.2d 652· 1st Cir.· 1987-06-29 ·cited 5×
  A conviction under a statute prohibiting the use of force or violence to intimidate union members can disqualify an individual from holding union office if the conduct underlying the conviction constitutes an 'assault which inflicts grievous bodily injury,' even if the statute it
• Boston v. United States
  939 F.3d 1266· 11th Cir.· 2019-09-30 ·cited 4×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that Florida convictions for aiding and abetting armed robbery qualify as violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act's elements clause, affirming the denial of the defendant's motion to correct his sentence.
• Aguayo v. State
  789 So. 2d 337· Fla.· 2001-06-28 ·cited 4×
  David Aguayo challenged his sentence under Florida's Prison Releasee Reoffender Act on multiple constitutional grounds. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, finding that all of Aguayo's challenges had been previously rejected in controlling precedent
• Leding v. State
  725 So. 2d 1221· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-01-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that statements made by children to their father and an officer were admissible as excited utterances, and the statute prohibiting interference with custody was not void for vagueness.
• State v. Mitchell
  652 So. 2d 473· Fla. 2d DCA· 1995-03-24 ·cited 4×
  The State of Florida appealed a trial court order dismissing charges against Mitchell for discharging destructive devices and declaring related statutes unconstitutional. The appellate court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding that the statutes are not void for vaguene
• Richards v. State
  643 So. 2d 89· Fla. 3d DCA· 1994-10-05 ·cited 4×
  Bryan Richards appealed his convictions for aggravated and simple battery enhanced under Florida's Hate Crimes Enhancement Statute after the district court initially reversed on void-for-vagueness grounds. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision and uphel
• United States v. Crozier
  987 F.2d 893· 2d Cir.· 1993-03-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 666(c) prohibits both bribery and gratuities, and that the statute was not void for vagueness as applied. The court also affirmed the sufficiency of evidence for the false tax return conviction and rejected the government's cross-appeal for sentenc
• Sojourner T v. Edwards
  974 F.2d 27· 5th Cir.· 1992-09-22 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the lower court's decision based on the precedent set by Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
• United States v. Elic L. Gilliam
  975 F.2d 1050· 4th Cir.· 1992-09-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court was not required to conduct a Rule 44(c) hearing at sentencing when the alleged conflict arose at trial and was not known or reasonably knowable by the court at that time.
• United States v. Walton Aucoin
  964 F.2d 1492· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellants' convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1955 and 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) were valid and did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, and that the district court properly applied the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege.
• Drain v. State
  601 So. 2d 256· Fla. 5th DCA· 1992-05-29 ·cited 4×
  James Drain was charged with possessing an imitation controlled substance (wax) with intent to distribute under Florida Statute § 817.564. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the denial of his motion to dismiss, holding that the charging information failed to allege essen
• Geter v. State
  598 So. 2d 236· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-05-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate the habitual offender statute is unconstitutional as applied, affirming the trial court's decision.
• Filippo v. Bongiovanni
  961 F.2d 1125· 3d Cir.· 1992-04-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the University's dismissal regulations, absent incorporation of the AAUP Statement on Professional Ethics, were void for vagueness and did not provide adequate notice that the charged conduct could lead to dismissal.
• United States v. Marquardt
  949 F.2d 283· 9th Cir.· 1991-11-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a district court's conclusory finding of a defendant's failure to accept responsibility is sufficient when there are no disputed factual issues, and that the term 'prepubescent' in the Sentencing Guidelines is not unconstitutionally vague as applied.
• Dial Info. Servs. Corp. OF NEW York v. Thornburgh
  938 F.2d 1535· 2d Cir.· 1991-07-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Helms Amendment's definition of 'indecent' is not void for vagueness, that presubscription is a sufficiently tailored means to protect minors, and that the statute does not constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint.
• United States v. Clinical Leasing Serv., Inc.
  925 F.2d 120· 5th Cir.· 1991-03-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the federal statutory registration requirements for dispensing controlled substances are not unconstitutionally vague, and affirmed the district court's imposition of civil penalties.
• In the Interest of T.C.
  573 So. 2d 121· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-01-09 ·cited 4×
  A minor was charged with possessing a hoax bomb (a brass pipe with caps and firecrackers) under Florida Statute 790.165(1). The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the statute is constitutional but requires proof that the defendant intended the device to appear as a weapon,
• Diversified Numismatics, Inc. v. City of Orlando
  783 F. Supp. 1337· M.D. Fla.· 1990-09-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the amended Orlando precious metals ordinance is constitutional and that the plaintiffs lack standing to challenge it, granting summary judgment for the defendants.
• Williams v. City OF Columbia
  906 F.2d 994· 4th Cir.· 1990-06-29 ·cited 4×
  A city zoning ordinance requiring a special exception for radio antennas exceeding seventeen feet is not preempted by federal law and does not violate constitutional rights when reasonably accommodating amateur radio communications.
• Server v. Mizell
  902 F.2d 611· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Illinois aggravated criminal sexual assault and abuse statutes, as construed by state courts, are not unconstitutionally vague and that the petitioner's other claims lack merit.
• Freeman v. State
  554 So. 2d 621· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-12-26 ·cited 4×
• State v. Raffield
  515 So. 2d 283· Fla. 1st DCA· 1987-10-20 ·cited 4×
  Florida appealed a county court's dismissal of misdemeanor charges against Raffield for possessing red fish taken by purse seine, where the trial court found the governing statute unconstitutional. The appellate court reversed, holding that Section 370.08(3) does not violate fede
• D.C. and M.S. v. The City OF ST. Louis
  795 F.2d 652· 8th Cir.· 1986-07-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the 'indecent or lewd act of behavior' provision of the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague and reversed the district court's denial of nominal damages.
• Lovely v. Cunningham
  796 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1986-06-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the New Hampshire Supreme Court's construction of the Aggravated Felonious Sexual Assault statute, including threats of economic reprisal within the definition of extortion, was not unforeseeable and thus did not violate due process principles of ex post facto
• Vernon Beigay, Inc. v. Traxler
  790 F.2d 1088· 4th Cir.· 1986-04-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while most of South Carolina's obscenity statutes comply with Miller guidelines, sections 16-15-280(1) and (4) are unconstitutionally overbroad. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the § 1983 claim.
• United States v. Pederson
  784 F.2d 1462· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-21 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments regarding the statute's vagueness, prosecutorial misconduct, denial of a continuance, or psychiatric evaluation.
• United States v. Goldfield Deep Mines Co. OF Nev.
  644 F.2d 1307· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Goldfield violated Forest Service regulations and was liable for trespass, and that the district court properly granted summary judgment, limited the trial to damages, and awarded relief.
• Piperato v. Zuelch
  395 So. 2d 1231· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-03-24 ·cited 4×
  Piperato, a tattoo artist, challenged Florida's tattoo licensing statute, seeking declaration that performing tattoos "under the direction" of a licensed physician need only involve periodic inspections and consultations rather than direct supervision. The court affirmed that "un
• SAN Diego Reg'l Emp. & Training Consortium v. Marshall
  633 F.2d 862· 9th Cir.· 1980-12-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner lacked standing to challenge CETA's residency provisions and that the Department of Labor correctly interpreted and applied CETA regulations.
• Stout v. Dallman
  492 F.2d 992· 6th Cir.· 1974-02-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the term 'other dangerous weapon' in Ohio's armed robbery statute is not unconstitutionally vague and provides sufficient warning of proscribed conduct.
• United States ex rel. Albert Mintzer v. Dros
  403 F.2d 42· 2d Cir.· 1967-11-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the writ of habeas corpus as the appellant's claims did not raise constitutional questions or were not cognizable in habeas corpus.
• Headley v. State of Fla. ex rel. Emanuel Selkowitz
  163 So. 2d 13· Fla. 3d DCA· 1964-04-07 ·cited 4×
  A municipal loitering ordinance is unconstitutionally vague when it fails to define the area involved, fails to define or limit the time of day it applies, and by its broad terms subjects any citizen engaged in lawful pursuits to possible arrest merely because he cannot give a sa
• 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
• Dante Martin v. State
  259 So. 3d 733· Fla.· 2018-12-13 ·cited 3×
  Dante Martin was convicted of manslaughter and hazing charges in connection with a ritual death at Florida A&M University's marching band. He challenged the constitutionality of Florida's hazing statute on overbreadth and void-for-vagueness grounds. The Florida Supreme Court uphe
• Women v. Butterworth
  54 F. Supp. 2d 1148· S.D. Fla.· 1998-12-02 ·cited 3×
  The court held that Florida's Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HB 1227) is unconstitutional because it places an undue burden on a woman's right to an abortion, lacks a sufficient health exception, and is void for vagueness.
• State v. LEE
  651 So. 2d 1221· Fla. 2d DCA· 1995-03-03 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the state sufficiently alleged attempted first-degree murder and that the denial of the motion to dismiss charges of shooting into a vehicle was proper.
• Warner v. Zent
  997 F.2d 116· 6th Cir.· 1993-06-07 ·cited 3×
  The court held that applying a judicial interpretation of a criminal statute retroactively, which was not foreseeable from the statute's plain language, violates the Due Process Clause by depriving the defendant of fair warning.
• In the Interest of D.M.
  616 So. 2d 1192· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-04-21 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the challenged statutes are not unconstitutionally vague, as they provide sufficient notice to parents and allow for necessary flexibility.
• Diversified Numismatics, Inc. v. City of Orlando
  615 F. Supp. 141· M.D. Fla.· 1985-03-25 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the Orlando ordinance regulating the purchase and sale of precious metals is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to provide adequate notice of prohibited conduct and minimal guidelines for law enforcement.
• McGUIRE v. State
  466 So. 2d 236· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-07-13 ·cited 3×
• Cohen v. Katsaris
  530 F. Supp. 1092· N.D. Fla.· 1982-01-07 ·cited 3×
  The court held that applying a judicial construction of the trespass statute that unforeseeably broadened its scope to criminalize conduct that occurred prior to the construction violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Rimmer v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp.
  656 F.2d 323· 8th Cir.· 1981-08-11 ·cited 3×
  The court holds that the Missouri service letter statute, as interpreted by the majority, requires proof of actual malice to recover punitive damages, which is the minimum standard to withstand a First Amendment challenge.
• Naymontie Nashare Enoch v. State
  95 So. 3d 344· Fla. 1st DCA· 2012-07-27 ·cited 2×
  Enoch appeals his convictions under Florida's gang prevention statutes, challenging their constitutionality. The court affirms his conviction under section 874.05(1) (gang recruitment) as constitutional under strict scrutiny, but reverses his conviction under section 874.11 (elec
• S. Fla. Equitable Fund LLC v. City of Miami
  770 F. Supp. 2d 1269· S.D. Fla.· 2011-03-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that SFEF's claims were not ripe for judicial review because SFEF failed to obtain a final decision from the City Commission and did not demonstrate hardship. The court also found the claims moot due to the enactment of a new zoning ordinance.
• Barnes v. State
  794 So. 2d 590· Fla.· 2001-07-05 ·cited 2×
  The Court held that Apprendi v. New Jersey does not require a defendant's release to be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt when sentencing under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act, as the Act limits sentencing discretion rather than increasing the maximum statutory penalt
• Sheffield v. State
  789 So. 2d 340· Fla.· 2001-07-05 ·cited 2×
  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 maximum statutory penalty.
• Bedford v. State
  780 So. 2d 903· Fla.· 2001-02-15 ·cited 2×
  The Florida Supreme Court approved the Fifth District Court of Appeal's decision upholding Gerald Bedford's sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act, rejecting his challenges to the Act's constitutionality and his eligibility for sentencing under its provisions.
• Fredrick Snell v. State
  777 So. 2d 972· Fla.· 2001-02-08 ·cited 2×
• Turner v. State
  778 So. 2d 974· Fla.· 2001-01-25 ·cited 2×