green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
39.4 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases, 1993–2016 · 2 courts ·
…in a declaratory judgment action no one has been charged so the court cannot evaluate the statute as applied.
at p. 360
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. v. Reyes
(2×)
in a declaratory judgment action no one has been charged so the court cannot evaluate the statute as applied.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
McCraw v. City of Okla. City
the court has consistently held statutes sufficiently certain when they employ words or phrases with 'a well-settled common law meaning, notwithstanding an element of degree in the definition as to which estimates might differ....
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Auburn Police Union v. Carpenter
in a declaratory judgment action no one has been charged so the court cannot evaluate the statute as applied.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lesh
“Criminal statutes must be more precise than civil statutes because the consequences of vagueness are more severe.” Gaudreau, 860 F.2d at 360.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Perry v. State of Colorado, The
(3×)
The Tenth Circuit has therefore “held that facial challenges are appropriate in two circumstances: (1) when a statute threatens to chill constitutionally protected conduct (particularly conduct protected by the First Amendment); or (2) when a plaintiff seeks pre-enforcement review of a statute because it is incapable of valid application.” Dias, 567 F.3d at 1179 -80 (citing United States v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 360-61 (10th Cir.1988); Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 , 494-95 & n.5 (1982)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
National Press Photographers Association v. McCraw
Such laws may be constitutionally infirm where they “encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement,” Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 (1983), or “have the capacity ‘to chill constitutionally protected conduct, especially conduct protected by the First Amendment.’” Roark & Hardee LP v. City of Austin, 522 F.3d 533, 546 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 360 (10th Cir.1988)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jose Muniz v. City of San Antonio, Texas
For that reason, courts “allow a person who is prosecuted for conduct which the state may constitutionally forbid to challenge the statute as vague on its face, rather than restricting him to challenging it as applied to his conduct, because those who refrain from speech will never have a chance to make their claims in court.” Gaudreau, 860 F.2d at 360. 14 arguments primarily rely on Section 5(1), which permits individuals to engage in certain activities if the individual first obtains a license from the City.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brown v. Buhman
Constitutional Law Found., Inc. v. Meyer, 120 F.3d 1092 , 1106 (10th Cir.1997) (instructing, in void-for-vagueness case, that "[w]e must read the statute as it has been interpreted by Colorado’s highest court”); United States v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 361 (10th Cir.1988) (‘‘[A] federal court evaluating a vagueness challenge to a state law must read the statute as it is interpreted by the state's highest court.” (citing Wainwright v. Stone, 414 U.S. 21, 22-23 , 94 S.Ct. 190 , 38 L.Ed.2d 179 (1973))). 7 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Galbreath v. City of Oklahoma
“The degree of specificity which the Constitution demands depends on the nature of the statute.” United States v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 360 (10th Cir.1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Colorado Outfitters Ass'n v. Hickenlooper
See Dias, 567 F.3d at 1179-80 ; United States v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 360 (10th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Griffin v. Bryant
“A federal court evaluating a vagueness challenge to a state law must read the statute as it is interpreted by the state’s highest court.” United States v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 361 (10th Cir.1988) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Galbreath v. The City of Oklahoma City
See Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 732 , 120 S.Ct. 2480 , 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000) (fair notice concerns can be “ameliorated” by the fact that the challenged statute “contains a scienter requirement”); United States v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 360 (10th Cir.1988) (“[A] scienter requirement may mitigate a criminal law’s vagueness by ensuring that it punishes only those who are aware their conduct is unlawful.”); Stahl v. City of St.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fulgham v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Id. at n. 21 (quoting U.S. v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 359 (10th Cir.1988)). .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Service Employees International Union, Local 5 v. City of Houston
Vagueness challenges usually must show that the law has a capacity “to chill constitutionally protected conduct, especially conduct protected by the First Amendment.” Roark & Hardee LP v. City of Austin, 522 F.3d 533, 546 (5th Cir.2008) (quoting United States v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 360 (10th Cir.1988)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dias v. City and County of Denver
United States v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 360-61 (10th Cir.1988): see Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 494 -95 & n. 5, 102 S.Ct. 1186 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Roark & Hardee LP v. City of Austin
Hence the analysis of these two concerns tends to overlap.” Gaudreau, 860 F.2d at 359. 27 No. 06-51670 ordinance was not drafted by the City but instead enacted via voter initiative, thereby prohibiting, pursuant to the City Charter, amendment or repeal until the ordinance has been in effect for two years.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Roark & Hardee LP v. City of Austin
Many times void-for-vagueness challenges are successfully made when laws have the capacity “to chill constitutionally protected conduct, especially conduct protected by the First Amendment.” United States v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 360 (10th Cir.1988); see, e.g., Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 615-16 , 91 S.Ct. 1686 , 29 L.Ed.2d 214 (1971); Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 390-91 , 99 S.Ct. 675 , 58 L.Ed.2d 596 (1979).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
ConocoPhillips Co. v. Henry
Facial vagueness challenges are also proper if the challenged law threatens to chill "constitutionally protected conduct.” See United States v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 360 (10th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Pope
United States v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 359-60 (10th Cir.1988) (footnotes omitted). 3 This court has recognized that a regulation is void for vagueness if it does not provide sufficient notice for a servicemember to reasonably understand that his conduct is proscribed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Green
(2×)
See United States v. Graham, 305 F.3d 1094, 1105 (10th Cir.2002); United States v. LaHue, 261 F.3d 993, 1004-05 (10th Cir.2001); United States v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 360 (10th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Aid for Women v. Foulston
“A federal court evaluating a vagueness challenge to a state law must read the statute as it is interpreted by the state’s highest court.” U.S. v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 361 (10th Cir.1988) (citation omitted).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Welch
(3×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
In other words, the indictment alleges Defendants used the channels of commerce to promote bribery, “a concept well-understood by the ordinary person.” Gaudreau, 860 F.2d at 363 (rejecting a constitutional challenge to Colorado’s commercial bribery statute when used as a predicate for a RICO prosecution).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Evans
See, e.g., Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flip- *1018 side, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 499 , 102 S.Ct. 1186 , 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982) (“[T]he Court has recognized that a scienter requirement may mitigate a law's vagueness, especially with respect to the adequacy of notice to the complainant that his conduct is proscribed.”); United States v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 360 (10th Cir.1988) ("[A] scienter requirement may mitigate a criminal law’s vagueness by ensuring that it punishes only those who are aware their conduct is unlawful.”) (citing Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 1…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Paul Giovanni Graham
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
A. Void for Vagueness “The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” United States v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 359 (10th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Graham
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
A. Void for Vagueness “The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” United States v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 359 (10th Cir. 1989).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Robert C. Lahue, United States of America v. Dan Anderson, United States of America v. Ronald H. Lahue, the American Hospital Association Federation of American Health Systems Association of American Medical Colleges American Osteopathic Association Missouri Hospital Association National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Amici Curiae
(11×)
also: Cited "see"
Facial challenges are permitted when the statute "threaten[s] to chill constitutionally protected conduct" and "in some instances ... on pre-enforcement review." Id. at 360-61.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Welch
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 360 (10th Cir.1988).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. LaHue
(11×)
also: Cited "see"
Facial challenges are permitted when the statute "threaten[s] to chill constitutionally protected conduct" and "in some instances ... on pre-enforcement review." Id. at 360-61.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Pourhassan
(2×)
United States v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 360 (10th Cir.1988) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544, 550 , 95 S.Ct. 710 , 42 L.Ed.2d 706 (1975) (“[V]agueness challenges to statutes which do not involve First Amendment freedoms must be examined in the light of the facts of the case at hand.”) (quoted in United States v. Corrow, 119 F.3d 796, 803 (10th Cir.1997)); United States v. Day, 223 F.3d 1225, 1228 (10th Cir.2000) (same). 3 Pourhassan hypothesizes that a literal reading of the statute implicates the rights of a category of individuals comprising manufacturer…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Oxx
Id. at 357-58 , 103 S.Ct. at 1858-59 ; United States v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 363 (10th Cir.1988) (citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc. v. Meyer
United States v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 361 (10th Cir.1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc. David Aitken Jon Baraga Craig C. Eley Jack Hawkins Lonnie Haynes Alden Kautz Bill Orr, Individually and as the Parent and Guardian of William David Orr v. Natalie Meyer, Individually and as Secretary of State for the State of Colorado Douglas Brown, Individually and as Director of Legislative Legal Services for the State of Colorado, American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc. David Aitken Jon Baraga Craig C. Eley Jack Hawkins Lonnie Haynes Alden Kautz William David Orr Bill Orr, Individually and as the Parent and Guardian of William David Orr v. Natalie Meyer, Individually and as Secretary of State for the State of Colorado Douglas Brown, Individually and as Director of Legislative Legal Services for the State of Colorado
United States v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 361 (10th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Corrow
(2×)
In void-for-vagueness review “[t]he same facets of a statute usually raise concerns of both fair notice and adequate enforcement standards.” United States v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 359 (10th Cir.1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Corrow
United States v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 360 (10th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Haworth
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453, 467, 111 S.Ct. 1919, 1928-29 , 114 L.Ed.2d 524 (1991); United States v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 361 (10th .Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Reed
United States v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 360-61 (10th Cir.1988) (citing Kolender, 461 U.S. at 357 , 103 S.Ct. at 1858 , and Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 497 , 102 S.Ct. at 1192-93 ); United States v. Ocegueda, 564 F.2d 1363, 1365 (9th Cir.1977).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dodger's Bar & Grill, Inc. v. Johnson County Board Of County Commissioners
United States v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 360 (10th Cir.1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dodger's Bar & Grill, Inc. v. Johnson County Board of County Commissioners
United States v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 360 (10th Cir.1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Phelps v. Hamilton
United States v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 360 (10th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lewis M. Dischner, United States of America v. Carl W. Mathisen
Even so, their contention that the statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied is without merit for the reasons set out in the Tenth Circuit’s persuasive opinion in United States v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 360-64 (10th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lewis M. Dischner, United States of America v. Carl W. Mathisen
Even so, their contention that the statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied is without merit for the reasons set out in the Tenth Circuit’s persuasive opinion in United States v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 360-64 (10th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Alan S. Agnew
Notwithstanding testimony that it is sometimes difficult to tell in all instances whether meat is good or bad because some indicia may change or be misleading, the circumstances shown by the record leave little room for questioning the applicability of the definition to the meat sold by Agnew to B.W. & A., Inc. Agnew acted upon the basis of rather clear notice, rather than merely at his peril, in a situation otherwise described in Gaudreau, 860 F.2d at 363, n. 17 , quoting Nash v. United States, 229 U.S. 373 , 33 S.Ct. 780 , 57 L.Ed. 1232 (1913): Laws cannot define the boundaries of impermissi…
cited
Cited "see"
Labarge v. Elutia, Inc.
See Richardson v. United States, 841 F.2d 993, 999 (9th Cir. 1988), amended as 26 to other issues, 860 F.2d 357 (9th Cir. 1988); Cervantes, 2019 WL 1129154 at *13. 27 28 1 III.
cited
Cited "see"
Zurba, Ludmilla v. United States
See Richardson v. United States, 841 F.2d 993, 999 , amended on an unrelated point, 860 F.2d 357 (9th Cir. 1988); O’Rourke v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 730 F.2d 842 , 856 (2d Cir. 1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ludmilla Zurba v. United States
(2×)
See Richardson v. United States, 841 F.2d 993, 999 , amended on an unrelated point, 860 F.2d 357 (9th Cir.1988); O’Rourke v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 730 F.2d 842 , 856 (2d Cir.1984).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. LaHue
(7×)
See United States v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 360-61 (10th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
Waltower v. Kaiser
See United States v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357 , 360-61 (10th Cir.1988) (distinguishing between facial and applied challenges); see also Levald, Inc. v. City of Palm Desert, 998 F.2d 680, 686 (9th Cir. 1993) (distinguishing between claims alleging that a statute “inflicts a single harm, measurable and compensable when the statute is passed” and claims in which “the harm inflicted by the statute is continuing, or does not occur until the statute is enforced — in other words, until it is applied”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Richmond Medical Center for Women v. Gilmore
Accord United States v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 359 (10th Cir.1988) (in void-for-vagueness review "[t]he same facets of a-statute usually raise concerns of both fair notice and adequate enforcement standards"). 64 .
cited
Cited "see"
James G. Muir v. United States
See Richardson v. United States, 841 F.2d 993 , as modified, 860 F.2d 357 (9th Cir.1988).
cited
Cited "see"
Auburn Police Union v. Carpenter
See United States v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 360-61 (10th Cir.1988) ("In a declaratory judgment action no one has been charged so the court cannot evaluate the statute as applied.”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kenneth Richardson, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant
v.
United States of America, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee. Norman J. Trapp v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee
v.
United States of America, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee. Norman J. Trapp v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee
86-4095.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Nov 2, 1988.
860 F.2d 357
Published
Citer courts: First Circuit (1) · W.D. Oklahoma (1)
Kenneth RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
Norman J. TRAPP, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
Nos. 86-4095, 86-4119 and 86-4106.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Nov. 2, 1988.
Before WRIGHT, ALARCON and POOLE, Circuit Judges.
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION
[*~357]1
The opinion of this court of March 14, 1988, 841 F.2d 993 (9th Cir.1988) is amended as follows:
[*~361]2
The last sentence of section II, 841 F.2d at 998, is amended by deleting the period and accompanying footnote nine following the word "trial," and adding the following words: " * * * on the issue of liability and the application of the Keegan standard.9 We leave to the sound discretion of the experienced trial judge the decision whether under all the circumstances there should be a full trial on other issues."
[*~364]3
The opinion is further amended in part IV, 841 F.2d at 1000, by striking the period following the word "trial" at the end of that paragraph and adding thereto the words "on the issue of liability and the application of the Keegan standard."