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 1983–2022 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc.green2 sentences2022"If a statute's deterrent effect on protected expression is not 'both real and substantial' and if the statute is 'readily subject to a narrowing construction,' the doctrine of overbreadth may not be employed." Commonwealth v. Abramms, 66 Mass. App. Ct. 576, 580 (2006), quoting Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 60 (1976). 1983In Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 60 (1976), quoting Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 216 (1975), the Court further explained that, if a statute’s deterrent effect on protected expression is not “both real and substantial” and if the statute is “readily subject to a narrowing construction,” the doctrine of overbreadth may not be employed. *445 In this case, the merchants have not demonstrated either substantial overbreadth or substantial deterrent effect. | 3 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Abrammsgreen1 sentence2022"If a statute's deterrent effect on protected expression is not 'both real and substantial' and if the statute is 'readily subject to a narrowing construction,' the doctrine of overbreadth may not be employed." Commonwealth v. Abramms, 66 Mass. App. Ct. 576, 580 (2006), quoting Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 60 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Provostgreen1 sentence2021See Commonwealth v. Provost, 418 Mass. 416, 422 (1994) (where "statute is readily subject to a narrowing construction, the doctrine of overbreadth may not be employed" [quotation and citation omitted]). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Wassiliegreen1 sentence2021See also Wassilie, supra (concluding that third paragraph of § 105 [b] is not unconstitutionally vague). | 1 | 1 |
Marshfield Family Skateland, Inc. v. Town of Marshfieldgreen2 sentences1999See, e.g., Marshfield Family Skateland, Inc. v. Marshfield, 389 Mass. 436, 444 (1983). “(I]f a statute’s deterrent effect on protected expression is not ‘both real and substantial’ and if the statute is ‘readily subject to a narrowing construction’ the doctrine of overbreadth may not be employed.” Id. at 444 . 1999See, e.g., Marshfield Family Skateland, Inc. v. Marshfield, 389 Mass. 436, 444 (1983). “(I]f a statute’s deterrent effect on protected expression is not ‘both real and substantial’ and if the statute is ‘readily subject to a narrowing construction’ the doctrine of overbreadth may not be employed.” Id. at 444 . | 1 | 1 |
Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonvillegreen1 sentence1983In Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 60 (1976), quoting Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 216 (1975), the Court further explained that, if a statute’s deterrent effect on protected expression is not “both real and substantial” and if the statute is “readily subject to a narrowing construction,” the doctrine of overbreadth may not be employed. *445 In this case, the merchants have not demonstrated either substantial overbreadth or substantial deterrent effect. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||