Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
A law can also be "void for vagueness" if it imposes on First Amendment freedom of speech, assembly, or religion. The "void for vagueness" legal doctrine does not apply to private law (that is, laws that govern rights and obligations as between private parties), only to laws that govern rights and obligations vis-a-vis the government.
On one set of theories of vagueness, it is indeterminate how many heaps or hairs are required. Perhaps our language simply does not specify a sharp boundary. In the small-improvement argument, the incomparability as vagueness view might say that it is indeterminate whether banking is better or worse than philosophy, or precisely equally good.
[44] [57] However, the understanding built by the surrounding case law has been largely dismissive of vagueness challenges. For instance, in Hamling v. United States (1974), the Supreme Court would uphold section 1461 by adopting a saving construction that conformed the section with the Miller test .
Pages in category "Void for vagueness case law" The following 32 pages are in this category, out of 32 total. This list may not reflect recent changes. *
Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), as an example of a "stop and identify" statute the Court had voided on vagueness grounds. In Hiibel , the Court held that a Nevada law [ 7 ] requiring persons detained upon reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime to state their name to a peace officer did not violate the ...
Jacksonville's ordinance at the time of the defendants' arrests and conviction was the following: [2] Rogues and vagabonds, or dissolute persons who go about begging, common gamblers, persons who use juggling or unlawful games or plays, common drunkards, common night walkers, thieves, pilferers or pickpockets, traders in stolen property, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons, keepers of gambling ...
The first phase of the rapid-fire effort by Tesla CEO Elon Musk and President Donald Trump to cut waste from government agencies appears driven more by an ideological assault on federal agencies ...
The Miller test, also called the three-prong obscenity test, is the United States Supreme Court's test for determining whether speech or expression can be labeled obscene, in which case it is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and can be prohibited.