36 Maryland opinions name it 3 courts 1976–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bowers v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Generally, a vagueness challenge to a statute “is based on the application of the statute to the ‘facts at hand.’” Galloway, 365 Md. at 616 (quoting Bowers v. State, 283 Md. 115, 122 (1978)). 2017Similarly, the Court of Appeals rejected a vagueness challenge to a criminal child-abuse statute that defined “abuse” as “physical injury sustained as result of cruel or inhumane treatment,” Bowers v. State, 283 Md. at 127-28 , 389 A.2d 341 ; and to a criminal statute that defined a “drug kingpin” as someone who occupied the position of “organizer, supervisor, financier, or manager” in a drug conspiracy. | 9 | 17 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2017“The vagueness doctrine does not require absolute precision or perfection[.]” Blaker v. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs, 123 Md.App. at 256 , 717 A.2d 964 . “ ‘Even trained lawyers may find it necessary to consult legal dictionaries, treatises, and judicial opinions before they may say with any certainty what some statutes may compel or forbid.’” Williams v. State, 329 Md. at 10 , 616 A.2d 1275 (quoting Rose v. Locke, 423 U.S. 48, 50 , 96 S.Ct. 243 , 46 L.Ed.2d 185 (1975)). 2017“The vagueness doctrine does not require absolute precision or perfection[.]” Blaker v. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs, 123 Md.App. at 256 , 717 A.2d 964 . “ ‘Even trained lawyers may find it necessary to consult legal dictionaries, treatises, and judicial opinions before they may say with any certainty what some statutes may compel or forbid.’” Williams v. State, 329 Md. at 10 , 616 A.2d 1275 (quoting Rose v. Locke, 423 U.S. 48, 50 , 96 S.Ct. 243 , 46 L.Ed.2d 185 (1975)). | 5 | 12 |
Eanes v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Because “[t]he root of the vagueness doctrine is a rough idea of fairness,” the “touchstone” of a vagueness analysis is “whether persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at [the law’s] meaning and differ as to its application.” Id. (cleaned up). 2020Because “[t]he root of the vagueness doctrine is a rough idea of fairness,” the “touchstone” of a vagueness analysis is “whether persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at [the law’s] meaning and differ as to its application.” Id. (cleaned up). | 3 | 8 |
Galloway v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Moreover, “‘the vagueness doctrine does not require absolute precision or perfection.’” McCree v. State, 441 Md. 4, 20 (2014) (quoting Galloway, 365 Md. at 634 ). 2024Moreover, “‘the vagueness doctrine does not require absolute precision or perfection.’” McCree v. State, 441 Md. 4, 20 (2014) (quoting Galloway, 365 Md. at 634 ). | 2 | 12 |
McCree v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Moreover, “‘the vagueness doctrine does not require absolute precision or perfection.’” McCree v. State, 441 Md. 4, 20 (2014) (quoting Galloway, 365 Md. at 634 ). 2024Moreover, “‘the vagueness doctrine does not require absolute precision or perfection.’” McCree v. State, 441 Md. 4, 20 (2014) (quoting Galloway, 365 Md. at 634 ). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Schrivergreen2 sentences2020See, e.g., Gallagher v. City of Clayton, 699 F.3d 1013, 1021 (8th Cir. 2012) (“It is well established that vagueness challenges to statutes which do not involve First Amendment freedoms must be examined in light of the facts of the case at hand.”), cert. denied, 569 U.S. 974 (2013); United States v. Other Med., 596 F.3d 677, 682 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Kim, 449 F.3d 933, 942 (9th Cir. 2006)) (“[V]agueness challenges to statutes that do not involve First Amendment violations must be examined as applied to the defendant.”); State v. Schriver, 542 A.2d 686, 689 (Conn. 16 Court o 2016As a result, when a vagueness challenge to a statute does not involve First Amendment interests, a facial challenge to the statute will not be considered.”) (footnote omitted); People v. Einoder, 209 Ill.2d 443, 448 , 283 Ill.Dec. 551 , 808 N.E.2d 517 (2004) ("A defendant may not challenge the facial vagueness of a statute that does not implicate first amendment freedoms unless the statute 'is incapable of any valid application.’ ”); State v. Schriver, 207 Conn. 456, 461 , 542 A.2d 686 (1988) (“For statutes that do not implicate the especially sensitive concerns embodied in the first amendment | 2 | 2 |
Arthur Gallagher v. City of Claytongreen2 sentences2020See, e.g., Gallagher v. City of Clayton, 699 F.3d 1013, 1021 (8th Cir. 2012) (“It is well established that vagueness challenges to statutes which do not involve First Amendment freedoms must be examined in light of the facts of the case at hand.”), cert. denied, 569 U.S. 974 (2013); United States v. Other Med., 596 F.3d 677, 682 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Kim, 449 F.3d 933, 942 (9th Cir. 2006)) (“[V]agueness challenges to statutes that do not involve First Amendment violations must be examined as applied to the defendant.”); State v. Schriver, 542 A.2d 686, 689 (Conn. 16 Court o 2016United States v. Klecker, 348 F.3d 69, 71 (4th Cir.2003); see also United States v. Sun, 278 F.3d 302, 309 (4th Cir.2002); Gallagher v. City of Clayton, 699 F.3d 1013, 1021 (8th Cir.2012) ("It is well established that vagueness challenges to statutes which do not involve First Amendment freedoms must be examined in light of the facts of the case at hand.”); United States v. Other Med., 596 F.3d 677, 682 (9th Cir.2010) ("[Vjagueness challenges to statutes that do not involve the First Amendment violations must be examined as applied to the defendant.”); In re Dependency of M.M., 174 Wash.App. 1 | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Other Medicinegreen2 sentences2020See, e.g., Gallagher v. City of Clayton, 699 F.3d 1013, 1021 (8th Cir. 2012) (“It is well established that vagueness challenges to statutes which do not involve First Amendment freedoms must be examined in light of the facts of the case at hand.”), cert. denied, 569 U.S. 974 (2013); United States v. Other Med., 596 F.3d 677, 682 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Kim, 449 F.3d 933, 942 (9th Cir. 2006)) (“[V]agueness challenges to statutes that do not involve First Amendment violations must be examined as applied to the defendant.”); State v. Schriver, 542 A.2d 686, 689 (Conn. 16 Court o 2016United States v. Klecker, 348 F.3d 69, 71 (4th Cir.2003); see also United States v. Sun, 278 F.3d 302, 309 (4th Cir.2002); Gallagher v. City of Clayton, 699 F.3d 1013, 1021 (8th Cir.2012) ("It is well established that vagueness challenges to statutes which do not involve First Amendment freedoms must be examined in light of the facts of the case at hand.”); United States v. Other Med., 596 F.3d 677, 682 (9th Cir.2010) ("[Vjagueness challenges to statutes that do not involve the First Amendment violations must be examined as applied to the defendant.”); In re Dependency of M.M., 174 Wash.App. 1 | 2 | 2 |
Giaccio v. Pennsylvaniagreen2 sentences1986See Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399, 402-403 , 86 S.Ct. 518 [520-521], 15 L.Ed.2d 447 (1966). 1986See Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399, 402-403 , 86 S.Ct. 518 [520-521], 15 L.Ed.2d 447 (1966). | 2 | 2 |
Colten v. Kentuckygreen2 sentences2000Indeed, the vagueness doctrine is designed to balance the need for criminal statutes "`general enough to take into account a variety of human conduct and sufficiently specific to provide fair warning that certain kinds of conduct are prohibited.'" Id. at 459, 569 A.2d 604 (quoting Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 110 , 92 S.Ct. 1953, 1957 , 32 L.Ed.2d 584 (1972)). 2000Indeed, the vagueness doctrine is designed to balance the need for criminal statutes "`general enough to take into account a variety of human conduct and sufficiently specific to provide fair warning that certain kinds of conduct are prohibited.'" Id. at 459, 569 A.2d 604 (quoting Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 110 , 92 S.Ct. 1953, 1957 , 32 L.Ed.2d 584 (1972)). | 1 | 3 |
Kolender v. Lawsongreen2 sentences1995The Supreme Court has described the legislature’s obligation to establish adequate guidelines for enforcement of the law as “the more important aspect of the vagueness doctrine .... ” Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 358 , 103 S.Ct. 1855, 1858 , 75 L.Ed.2d. 903, 909 (1983). 1995The Supreme Court has described the legislature’s obligation to establish adequate guidelines for enforcement of the law as “the more important aspect of the vagueness doctrine .... ” Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 358 , 103 S.Ct. 1855, 1858 , 75 L.Ed.2d. 903, 909 (1983). | 1 | 3 |
Rose v. Lockegreen2 sentences2017“The vagueness doctrine does not require absolute precision or perfection[.]” Blaker v. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs, 123 Md.App. at 256 , 717 A.2d 964 . “ ‘Even trained lawyers may find it necessary to consult legal dictionaries, treatises, and judicial opinions before they may say with any certainty what some statutes may compel or forbid.’” Williams v. State, 329 Md. at 10 , 616 A.2d 1275 (quoting Rose v. Locke, 423 U.S. 48, 50 , 96 S.Ct. 243 , 46 L.Ed.2d 185 (1975)). 2017“The vagueness doctrine does not require absolute precision or perfection[.]” Blaker v. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs, 123 Md.App. at 256 , 717 A.2d 964 . “ ‘Even trained lawyers may find it necessary to consult legal dictionaries, treatises, and judicial opinions before they may say with any certainty what some statutes may compel or forbid.’” Williams v. State, 329 Md. at 10 , 616 A.2d 1275 (quoting Rose v. Locke, 423 U.S. 48, 50 , 96 S.Ct. 243 , 46 L.Ed.2d 185 (1975)). | 1 | 2 |
Grayned v. City of Rockfordgreen2 sentences2016Cf. VNA Hospice of Maryland v. Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, 406 Md. 584, 604 , 961 A.2d 557, 569 (2008) (discussing this Court’s preference “‘to decide constitutional issues only when necessary.’”) (citations omitted). -4- juries for resolution on an Ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application.” Id. at 121-22, 389 A.2d. at 345 (quoting Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-109 , 92 S. Ct. 2294, 2299 (1972) accord, Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 170 , 92 S. Ct. 839, 843 (1972)). 2016Cf. VNA Hospice of Maryland v. Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, 406 Md. 584, 604 , 961 A.2d 557, 569 (2008) (discussing this Court’s preference “‘to decide constitutional issues only when necessary.’”) (citations omitted). -4- juries for resolution on an Ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application.” Id. at 121-22, 389 A.2d. at 345 (quoting Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-109 , 92 S. Ct. 2294, 2299 (1972) accord, Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 170 , 92 S. Ct. 839, 843 (1972)). | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Powellgreen2 sentences2001In other words, “the vagueness doctrine does not require absolute precision or perfection.” Williams, 329 Md. at 13 , 616 A.2d at 1280 -81 (citing United States v. Powell, 423 U.S. 87, 94 , 96 S.Ct. 316, 321 , 46 L.Ed.2d 228 (1975)). 2001In other words, “the vagueness doctrine does not require absolute precision or perfection.” Williams, 329 Md. at 13 , 616 A.2d at 1280 -81 (citing United States v. Powell, 423 U.S. 87, 94 , 96 S.Ct. 316, 321 , 46 L.Ed.2d 228 (1975)). | 1 | 2 |
Moore v. Williamsburg Cnty. Sch. Dist.green1 sentence2020See, e.g., Gallagher v. City of Clayton, 699 F.3d 1013, 1021 (8th Cir. 2012) (“It is well established that vagueness challenges to statutes which do not involve First Amendment freedoms must be examined in light of the facts of the case at hand.”), cert. denied, 569 U.S. 974 (2013); United States v. Other Med., 596 F.3d 677, 682 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Kim, 449 F.3d 933, 942 (9th Cir. 2006)) (“[V]agueness challenges to statutes that do not involve First Amendment violations must be examined as applied to the defendant.”); State v. Schriver, 542 A.2d 686, 689 (Conn. 16 Court o | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Jae Gab Kimgreen1 sentence2020See, e.g., Gallagher v. City of Clayton, 699 F.3d 1013, 1021 (8th Cir. 2012) (“It is well established that vagueness challenges to statutes which do not involve First Amendment freedoms must be examined in light of the facts of the case at hand.”), cert. denied, 569 U.S. 974 (2013); United States v. Other Med., 596 F.3d 677, 682 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Kim, 449 F.3d 933, 942 (9th Cir. 2006)) (“[V]agueness challenges to statutes that do not involve First Amendment violations must be examined as applied to the defendant.”); State v. Schriver, 542 A.2d 686, 689 (Conn. 16 Court o | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Einodergreen | 1 | 1 |
| VNA Hospice of Md. v. DEPT. OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENEgreen | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Bing Sun Patte Sun All Ports, Incorporatedgreen2 sentences2016United States v. Klecker, 348 F.3d 69, 71 (4th Cir.2003); see also United States v. Sun, 278 F.3d 302, 309 (4th Cir.2002); Gallagher v. City of Clayton, 699 F.3d 1013, 1021 (8th Cir.2012) ("It is well established that vagueness challenges to statutes which do not involve First Amendment freedoms must be examined in light of the facts of the case at hand.”); United States v. Other Med., 596 F.3d 677, 682 (9th Cir.2010) ("[Vjagueness challenges to statutes that do not involve the First Amendment violations must be examined as applied to the defendant.”); In re Dependency of M.M., 174 Wash.App. 1 2016United States v. Klecker, 348 F.3d 69, 71 (4th Cir. 2003); see also United States v. Sun, 278 F.3d 302, 309 (4th Cir. 2002); Gallagher v. City of Clayton, 699 F.3d 1013, 1021 (8th Cir. 2012) (‘It is well established that vagueness challenges to statutes which do not involve First Amendment freedoms must be examined in light of the facts of the case at hand.”); United States v. Other Med., 596 F.3d 677, 682 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[V]agueness challenges to statutes that do not involve the First Amendment violations must be examined as applied to the defendant.”); In re Dependency of M.M., 174 Wash. A | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Richard Lester Kleckergreen2 sentences2016United States v. Klecker, 348 F.3d 69, 71 (4th Cir.2003); see also United States v. Sun, 278 F.3d 302, 309 (4th Cir.2002); Gallagher v. City of Clayton, 699 F.3d 1013, 1021 (8th Cir.2012) ("It is well established that vagueness challenges to statutes which do not involve First Amendment freedoms must be examined in light of the facts of the case at hand.”); United States v. Other Med., 596 F.3d 677, 682 (9th Cir.2010) ("[Vjagueness challenges to statutes that do not involve the First Amendment violations must be examined as applied to the defendant.”); In re Dependency of M.M., 174 Wash.App. 1 2016United States v. Klecker, 348 F.3d 69, 71 (4th Cir. 2003); see also United States v. Sun, 278 F.3d 302, 309 (4th Cir. 2002); Gallagher v. City of Clayton, 699 F.3d 1013, 1021 (8th Cir. 2012) (‘It is well established that vagueness challenges to statutes which do not involve First Amendment freedoms must be examined in light of the facts of the case at hand.”); United States v. Other Med., 596 F.3d 677, 682 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[V]agueness challenges to statutes that do not involve the First Amendment violations must be examined as applied to the defendant.”); In re Dependency of M.M., 174 Wash. A | 1 | 1 |
Papachristou v. City of Jacksonvillegreen2 sentences2016Cf. VNA Hospice of Maryland v. Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, 406 Md. 584, 604 , 961 A.2d 557, 569 (2008) (discussing this Court’s preference “‘to decide constitutional issues only when necessary.’”) (citations omitted). -4- juries for resolution on an Ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application.” Id. at 121-22, 389 A.2d. at 345 (quoting Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-109 , 92 S. Ct. 2294, 2299 (1972) accord, Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 170 , 92 S. Ct. 839, 843 (1972)). 2016Cf. VNA Hospice of Maryland v. Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, 406 Md. 584, 604 , 961 A.2d 557, 569 (2008) (discussing this Court’s preference “‘to decide constitutional issues only when necessary.’”) (citations omitted). -4- juries for resolution on an Ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application.” Id. at 121-22, 389 A.2d. at 345 (quoting Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-109 , 92 S. Ct. 2294, 2299 (1972) accord, Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 170 , 92 S. Ct. 839, 843 (1972)). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Randolgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sarah B. Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Avenue Apartment Corporationgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Saundersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Schochet v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Hendricksongreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Smithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Smith v. Goguengreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Charges of Unprofessional Conduct Against N.P.green | 1 | 1 |
| Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission v. Mayor of Rockvillegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Phillips
green
2 sentences2020Phillips, 210 Md. 2014Phillips, 210 Md.App. at 266 , 63 A.3d 51 . | 2 | 2014–2020 |
Livingston v. State
green
2 sentences2020App. at 568, 995 A.2d 812 (quoting Eanes v. State, 318 Md. 436 , 458–59, 569 A.2d 604 (1990)). 2014As this Court recently explained criminal statutes must “provide legally fixed standards and adequate guidelines for police, judicial officers, triers of fact and others whose obligation it is to enforce, apply and administer the penal laws.” [Livingston, 192 Md.App. at 569 , 995 A.2d 812 .] “[A] statute is not unconstitutionally vague merely because it allows for the exercise of some discretion on the part of law enforcement and judicial officials.” Galloway, 365 Md. at 616 [ 781 A.2d 851 ]. | 2 | 2014–2020 |
United States v. Petrillo
green
2 sentences1990In United States v. Petrillo, 332 U.S. 1 , 67 S.Ct. 1538 , 91 L.Ed. 1877 (1947), the Court rejected a vagueness challenge to a criminal provision of the Communications Act of 1934 prohibiting intimidating tactics to coerce a licensee to employ “any person or persons in excess of the number of employees needed by such licensee to perform actual services.” DR 2-106 is much more precise. 1990In United States v. Petrillo, 332 U.S. 1 , 67 S.Ct. 1538 , 91 L.Ed. 1877 (1947), the Court rejected a vagueness challenge to a criminal provision of the Communications Act of 1934 prohibiting intimidating tactics to coerce a licensee to employ “any person or persons in excess of the number of employees needed by such licensee to perform actual services.” DR 2-106 is much more precise. | 2 | 1990–2009 |
Connally v. General Construction Co.
green
2 sentences1989A vagueness inquiry focuses on whether a law states its requirements in terms so vague that persons of reasonable intelligence “ ‘must necessarily guess at its meaning.’ ” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 607 , 93 S.Ct. 2908, 2913 , 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973), quoting Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 , 46 S.Ct. 126, 127 , 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926). 1989A vagueness inquiry focuses on whether a law states its requirements in terms so vague that persons of reasonable intelligence “ ‘must necessarily guess at its meaning.’ ” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 607 , 93 S.Ct. 2908, 2913 , 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973), quoting Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 , 46 S.Ct. 126, 127 , 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926). | 2 | 1989–2001 |
Sapia v. Charter Marketing Co.
green
2 sentences2001See supra p. 855. [7] See Williams v. State, 329 Md. 1, 8 , 616 A.2d 1275, 1278 (1992) (stating that the vagueness doctrine is "rooted in the fourteenth amendment's guarantee of procedural due process"); Eanes v. State, 318 Md. 436, 459 , 569 A.2d 604, 615 (1990) (discussing how vagueness is "based on fourteenth amendment due process or fairness concerns"), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 938 , 110 S.Ct. 3218 , 110 L.Ed.2d 665 ; see also LAURENCE H. 2001See Williams v. State, 329 Md. 1, 8 , 616 A.2d 1275, 1278 (1992) (stating that the vagueness doctrine is “rooted in the fourteenth amendment's guarantee of procedural due process''); Eanes v. State, 318 Md. 436, 459 , 569 A.2d 604, 615 (1990) (discussing how vagueness is "based on fourteenth amendment due process or fairness concerns”), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 938 , 110 S.Ct. 3218 , 110 L.Ed.2d 665 ; see also Laurence H. | 2 | 1994–2001 |
Ayers v. State
green
1 sentence2020The Court of Appeals has explained, however, that a facial challenge is appropriate “when a statute threatens to chill constitutionally protected conduct (particularly conduct protected by the First Amendment).” Pizza di Joey, 470 Md. 15 at 362. 4 Accord Ayers v. State, 335 Md. 602 , 624–25 (1994) (Where a “statute appears to impinge upon fundamental constitutional rights such as the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and assembly, the statute is tested for vagueness on its face because its indefiniteness may have a chilling effect on the exercise of First Amendment liberties.”), cert. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Pizza Di Joey, LLC v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
green
1 sentence2020Id. at 178-82 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Motor Vehicle Administration v. Seenath
green
1 sentence2020Seenath, 448 Md. at 183 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Kersh v. Liberty State Bank & Trust
green
1 sentence2020The Court of Appeals has explained, however, that a facial challenge is appropriate “when a statute threatens to chill constitutionally protected conduct (particularly conduct protected by the First Amendment).” Pizza di Joey, 470 Md. 15 at 362. 4 Accord Ayers v. State, 335 Md. 602 , 624–25 (1994) (Where a “statute appears to impinge upon fundamental constitutional rights such as the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and assembly, the statute is tested for vagueness on its face because its indefiniteness may have a chilling effect on the exercise of First Amendment liberties.”), cert. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Johnson v. United States
green
2 sentences2020Johnson concerned a vagueness challenge to the “residual clause” of the federal Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924 (e), which established a mandatory minimum sentence for offenders who have at least three prior convictions for a felony offense involving conduct “that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” To determine whether ACCA’s greater sentence applied to a particular defendant, a federal district court had to imagine an “ordinary” version of each of the defendant’s potential qualifying prior offenses and assess whether that “abstraction present 2020Because the statute “tie[d] the judicial assessment of risk to a judicially imagined ‘ordinary case’ of a crime, not to real-world facts or statutory elements,” id., it was not surprising that the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts struggled for many years – and failed – to apply ACCA consistently. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Blaker v. State Board of Chiropractic Examiners
green
2 sentences2017“The vagueness doctrine does not require absolute precision or perfection[.]” Blaker v. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs, 123 Md.App. at 256 , 717 A.2d 964 . “ ‘Even trained lawyers may find it necessary to consult legal dictionaries, treatises, and judicial opinions before they may say with any certainty what some statutes may compel or forbid.’” Williams v. State, 329 Md. at 10 , 616 A.2d 1275 (quoting Rose v. Locke, 423 U.S. 48, 50 , 96 S.Ct. 243 , 46 L.Ed.2d 185 (1975)). 2017“The vagueness doctrine does not require absolute precision or perfection[.]” Blaker v. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs, 123 Md.App. at 256 , 717 A.2d 964 . “ ‘Even trained lawyers may find it necessary to consult legal dictionaries, treatises, and judicial opinions before they may say with any certainty what some statutes may compel or forbid.’” Williams v. State, 329 Md. at 10 , 616 A.2d 1275 (quoting Rose v. Locke, 423 U.S. 48, 50 , 96 S.Ct. 243 , 46 L.Ed.2d 185 (1975)). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Greve v. Department of Social & Health Services neutral | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Skilling v. United States green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Butler green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Pack Shack, Inc. v. Howard County green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| McKenzie v. State neutral | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| McKENZIE AND GREEN v. State green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Bartley v. Sweetser green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| In Re James D. green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Wilson v. Board of Supervisors of Elections green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Thornhill v. Alabama green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| United States v. National Dairy Products Corp. green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| United States v. Mazurie green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| State v. Richards green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Michigan v. Grzegorczyk green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Tapp v. Frank green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Bakhshekooei v. United States green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Wilson v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Caldwell v. State green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Boyer v. State green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Miller v. Maloney Concrete Co. green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Colautti v. Franklin green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| United States v. Jose Guadalupe Valenzuela green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Peabody Coal Co. v. Missouri Public Service green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Hackett v. Hackett green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Hoke v. Board of Medical Examiners green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Kovacs v. Cooper green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Attorney Grievance Commission v. Korotki green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Libbey-Owens-Ford Co. v. Shatterproof Glass Corp. green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| In re Matter of N. P. green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.