green
Positive treatment
Issue: void-for-vagueness doctrinePA ↗
Issue: vagueness challengePA ↗
Issue: as-applied constitutional challengePA ↗
Quoted verbatim 1×
45.7 score
G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases · 3 courts ·
…prevents the government from imposing sanctions under a criminal law that fails to give fair notice of the proscribed conduct.
at p. 204
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2018 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2018
2022
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 24 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Heggins, K.
courts should avoid constitutional issues when the issue at hand may be decided upon other grounds
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. of PA v. A.B. McCormack
This is to say that “the void-for-vagueness doctrine is grounded on federal due process norms,” Commonwealth v. Herman, 161 A.3d 194, 214 (Pa. 2017), and “[t]he doctrine is based on the idea of fairness [and i]ts purpose is only to give ‘fair warning’ of prohibited conduct,” San Filippo v. Bongiovanni, 961 F.2d 1125, 1135 (3d Cir. 1992) (emphasis added) (citing Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 110 (1972)).8 In Borough of Palmyra v. Brandt (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 866 C.D. 2016, filed August 25, 2017), this Court set forth the void-for-vagueness doctrine as it has been applied in Pennsylv…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. McCormick, E.
To determine whether a statute is void for vagueness, the question is whether the statute “forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that [persons] of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application[.]” Commonwealth v. Herman, 161 A.3d 194, 204 (Pa. 2017) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Pitt, W.
Further, “[w]here, as here, a vagueness challenge does not involve First Amendment freedoms, it is examined in the light of the facts of the case at hand, and the statute is judged on an as-applied basis.” Commonwealth v. Herman, 161 A.3d 194, 204-05 (Pa. 2017) (cleaned up).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
The Com. of PA v. The A.G. of the Com. of PA
We are also mindful that we must presume that “the General Assembly does not intend to violate the Constitution of the United States or this Commonwealth.” 1 Pa. C.S. §1922. “[If] a statute is susceptible of two reasonable constructions, one of which would raise constitutional difficulties and the other of which would not, we adopt the latter construction.” Commonwealth v. Herman, 161 A.3d 194, 212 (Pa. 2017).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. White, C.
It is well settled law “that statutes enjoy[] a strong presumption of validity and will only be declared void if they clearly and plainly violate the Constitution, with all doubts resolved in favor of a finding of constitutionality.” Commonwealth v. Herman, 161 A.3d 194, 205 (Pa. 2017) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Harris, R.
The ____________________________________________ 7 “Under the canon of constitutional avoidance, if a statute is susceptible of two reasonable constructions, one of which would raise constitutional difficulties and the other of which would not, we adopt the latter construction.” Commonwealth v. Herman, 161 A.3d 194, 212 (Pa. 2017).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Hayes, G.
Did the [sentencing] court err in finding that a [PBJ] under Maryland Law does not constitute a prior ____________________________________________ 3 We thereby “adhere to the sound tenet of jurisprudence that courts should avoid constitutional issues when the [case] may be decided upon other grounds.” Commonwealth v. Herman, 161 A.3d 194, 209 (Pa. 2017). -3- J-A16013-21 offense for purposes of sentencing on a new DUI when that disposition requires either that a defendant admit guilt or that the state prove culpability beyond a reasonable doubt before it can be imposed? 2.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Dunkins, A., Aplt.
“By reaching our holding on these grounds, we not only resolve [appellant’s] claim on the terms in which he has framed it, we also ‘adhere to the sound tenet of jurisprudence that courts should avoid constitutional issues when the issue at hand may be decided upon other grounds.’” Commonwealth v. Herman, 161 A.3d 194, 209 (Pa. 2017), quoting In re Fiori, 673 A.2d 905, 909 (Pa. 1996) (citation omitted); accord Ala. State Fed’n of Labor v. McAdory, 325 U.S. 450, 461-62 (1945) (“It has long been [a] considered practice not to decide abstract, hypothetical or contingent questions, or…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
T. Dockery v. T. Wolf, Gov. of PA
In reaching its conclusion, the Supreme Court explained: The void for vagueness doctrine “prevents the government from imposing sanctions under a criminal law that fails to give fair notice of the proscribed conduct.” Commonwealth v. Herman, . . . 161 A.3d 194, 204 ([Pa. ]2017) (citing Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 , 595 . . . (2015)[)].
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Mbewe, C.
Section 1102(a) is unconstitutional and void under the vagueness doctrine because the statute fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that its true penalty is life imprisonment “without parole?” (Mbewe’s Brief, at 3). ____________________________________________ 2 The void for vagueness doctrine “prevents the government from imposing sanctions under a criminal law that fails to give fair notice of the proscribed conduct.” Commonwealth v. Herman, 161 A.3d 194, 204 (Pa. 2017) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
M.B. Henry v. T. Wolf, Gov. of PA & The General Assembly
In reaching its conclusion, the Supreme Court explained: The void for vagueness doctrine “prevents the government from imposing sanctions under a criminal law that fails to give fair notice of the proscribed conduct.” Commonwealth v. Herman, . . . 161 A.3d 194, 204 ([Pa.] 2017) (citing Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 , 595 . . . (2015)[)].
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Moore, I., Aplt.
The void for vagueness doctrine “prevents the government from imposing sanctions under a criminal law that fails to give fair notice of the proscribed conduct.” Commonwealth v. Herman, 161 A.3d 194, 204 (Pa. 2017) (citing Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591, 595 (2015).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
R.L. v. DHS
Commonwealth v. Herman, 161 A.3d 194, 209 (Pa. 2017). 12 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA R.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rohland, W., Aplt. v. Business Office, DOC
See In re T.S., 648 Pa. 236 , 248, 192 A.3d 1080, 1087 (2018); Commonwealth v. Herman, 639 Pa. 466, 483 , 161 A.3d 194, 205 (2017) (citing Commonwealth v. Davidson, 595 Pa. 1, 11 , 938 A.2d 198, 203 (2007)).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re: Appointment to Fill a Vacancy
See Commonwealth v. Herman, 161 A.3d 194 , 209 (Pa. 2017) (applying “sound tenet of jurisprudence” that courts should avoid constitutional issues when the question may be decided on other grounds).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Worzel, M.
See Commonwealth v. Herman, 161 A.3d 194, 212 (Pa. 2017) (stating “if a statute is susceptible of two reasonable constructions, one of which would - 12 - J-A21035-24 raise constitutional difficulties and the other of which would not, we adopt the latter construction”).
discussed
Cited "see"
D. Fleet v. Bureau of Driver Licensing
See Commonwealth v. Herman, 161 A.3d 194, 209 (Pa. 2017) (noting “the sound tenet of jurisprudence that courts should avoid constitutional issues when the issue at hand may be decided upon other grounds”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Kling, R.
(2×)
See Commonwealth v. Herman, 161 A.3d 194, 204 (Pa. 2017); Commonwealth v. Berry, 167 A.3d 100, 108 (Pa. Super. 2017).
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Peters, A., Aplt.
See generally Commonwealth v. Herman, 639 Pa. 466, 494 , 161 A.3d 194, 211 (2017).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Goodco Mechanical, Inc.
(2×)
Commonwealth v. Habay, 934 A.2d 732, 737 (Pa.Super. 2007) (quoting Commonwealth v. Thur, 906 A.2d 552, 561 (Pa.Super. 2006)); see also Commonwealth v. Herman, 161 A.3d 194, 204 (Pa. 2017).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re: Appointment of a Receiver for the Chester Upland SD ~ Appeal of: PA Cyber Charter School
Whether the trial court had authority to order such a payment is addressed infra. 30 Having concluded that the trial court erred when it approved the Plan modification, this Court does not address the Cyber Charter Schools’ challenges to the Act’s constitutionality, because the law is well-established that “courts should avoid constitutional issues when the issue at hand may be decided upon other grounds.” In re Fiori, 673 A.2d 905, 909 (Pa. 1996); see also Commonwealth v. Herman, 161 A.3d 194 (Pa. 2017); Cary v. Bureau of Prof’l & Occupational Affairs, State Bd. of Med., 153 A.3d 12…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Craig SAUNDERS
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, State Correctional Institution at Rockview
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, State Correctional Institution at Rockview
No. 34 EAP 2016.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Apr 26, 2017.
161 A.3d 194
2017 WL 1507612
2017 Pa. LEXIS 942
Craig Saunders, pro se., Theron Richard Perez, Maria Gerarda Macus, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 1920 Technology Parkway, Me-chanicsburg, PA 17050, for Appellees.
Published
ORDER
PER CURIAMAND NOW, this 26th day of April, 2017, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED.