Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Massachusetts opinions name it 3 courts 1979–2011 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Massachusetts courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Orlandogreen2 sentences1994A “law is not vague ... if it requires a person to conform his conduct to an imprecise but comprehensive normative standard so that men of common intelligence will know its meaning.” Commonwealth v. Taylor, 413 Mass. 243, 248 (1992), quoting Commonwealth v. Orlando, 371 Mass. 732, 734 (1977). 1992“A law is not vague ... if it requires a person to conform his conduct to an imprecise but comprehensive normative standard so that men of common intelligence will know its meaning.” Commonwealth v. Gallant, 373 Mass. 577, 580 (1977), quoting Commonwealth v. Orlando, 371 Mass. 732, 734 (1977). | 4 | 4 |
Commonwealth v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2011“Proscribed conduct need not, however, be set forth by ‘precise legal definition’ or with ‘mathematical precision,’ ” Commonwealth v. Dunn, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 58, 59 (1997), and a “law is not vague if it requires a person to conform his conduct to an imprecise but comprehensive normative standard so that men of common intelligence will know its meaning.” Commonwealth v. Taylor, 413 Mass. 243 (1992). 1994A “law is not vague ... if it requires a person to conform his conduct to an imprecise but comprehensive normative standard so that men of common intelligence will know its meaning.” Commonwealth v. Taylor, 413 Mass. 243, 248 (1992), quoting Commonwealth v. Orlando, 371 Mass. 732, 734 (1977). | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Dunngreen2 sentences2011“Proscribed conduct need not, however, be set forth by ‘precise legal definition’ or with ‘mathematical precision,’ ” Commonwealth v. Dunn, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 58, 59 (1997), and a “law is not vague if it requires a person to conform his conduct to an imprecise but comprehensive normative standard so that men of common intelligence will know its meaning.” Commonwealth v. Taylor, 413 Mass. 243 (1992). 2011“When examining a criminal statute for possible unconstitutional vagueness, [the court] may go beyond the actual language of the statute to give meaning to the words and phrases according to their common law meaning or statutory history.” Dunn, 43 Mass.App. at 59 , citing Commonwealth v. Gallant, 373 Mass. 575, 581 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Gallantgreen1 sentence1992“A law is not vague ... if it requires a person to conform his conduct to an imprecise but comprehensive normative standard so that men of common intelligence will know its meaning.” Commonwealth v. Gallant, 373 Mass. 577, 580 (1977), quoting Commonwealth v. Orlando, 371 Mass. 732, 734 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
Broadrick v. Oklahomagreen1 sentence1979Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 608 (1973). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||