24 Virginia opinions name it 6 courts 1988–2026 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Virginia 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 |
|---|---|---|
Broadrick v. Oklahomagreen2 sentences2005The First Amendment doctrine of overbreadth requires proof that a law "punishes a `substantial' amount of protected free speech, `judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep.'" Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U.S. 113 , 118, 123 S.Ct. 2191 , 156 L.Ed.2d 148 (2003) (citing Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 , 615, 93 S.Ct. 2908 , 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973)). 2005The First Amendment doctrine of overbreadth requires proof that a law "punishes a `substantial' amount of protected free speech, `judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep.'" Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U.S. 113 , 118, 123 S.Ct. 2191 , 156 L.Ed.2d 148 (2003) (citing Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 , 615, 93 S.Ct. 2908 , 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973)). | 2 | 4 |
Herbert Liverman v. City of Petersburggreen2 sentences2024“Courts begin the First Amendment inquiry by assessing whether the speech at issue relates to a matter of public concern.” Liverman v. City of Petersburg, 844 F.3d 400, 406 (4th Cir. 2016). 2024“Courts begin the First Amendment inquiry by assessing whether the speech at issue relates to a matter of public concern.” Liverman v. City of Petersburg, 844 F.3d 400, 406 (4th Cir. 2016). | 2 | 2 |
Shenandoah Publishing House, Inc. v. Fanninggreen2 sentences2022Seeking to open up this proceeding to the public, the newspaper publisher has not only asked us to unseal our “sealing order” but has also asked us to provide “constitutionally- 1 See Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 574, 589-90 (1981) (Richmond II) (holding that “interested members of the public should have the right to be heard”); Shenandoah Publ’g House v. Fanning, 235 Va. 253, 259 (1988) (applying the procedural guidelines announced in Richmond II to judicial records in civil proceedings); cf. Ashcroft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288 , 302 (4th Cir. 2000) (requiring courts 2022Seeking to open up this proceeding to the public, the newspaper publisher has not only asked us to unseal our “sealing order” but has also asked us to provide “constitutionally- 1 See Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 574, 589-90 (1981) (Richmond II) (holding that “interested members of the public should have the right to be heard”); Shenandoah Publ’g House v. Fanning, 235 Va. 253, 259 (1988) (applying the procedural guidelines announced in Richmond II to judicial records in civil proceedings); cf. Ashcroft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288 , 302 (4th Cir. 2000) (requiring courts | 2 | 2 |
Massachusetts v. Oakesgreen2 sentences1998Overbreadth Under the First Amendment "'The First Amendment doctrine of . . . overbreadth is an exception to the general rule that a person to whom a statute may be constitutionally applied cannot challenge the statute on the ground that it may be unconstitutionally applied to others.'" Perkins v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 7, 11-12 , 402 S.E.2d 229, 232 (1991) (quoting Massachusetts v. Oakes, 491 U.S. 576, 581 (1989)). 1998Overbreadth Under the First Amendment "'The First Amendment doctrine of . . . overbreadth is an exception to the general rule that a person to whom a statute may be constitutionally applied cannot challenge the statute on the ground that it may be unconstitutionally applied to others.'" Perkins v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 7, 11-12 , 402 S.E.2d 229, 232 (1991) (quoting Massachusetts v. Oakes, 491 U.S. 576, 581 (1989)). | 2 | 2 |
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2022Seeking to open up this proceeding to the public, the newspaper publisher has not only asked us to unseal our “sealing order” but has also asked us to provide “constitutionally- 1 See Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 574, 589-90 (1981) (Richmond II) (holding that “interested members of the public should have the right to be heard”); Shenandoah Publ’g House v. Fanning, 235 Va. 253, 259 (1988) (applying the procedural guidelines announced in Richmond II to judicial records in civil proceedings); cf. Ashcroft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288 , 302 (4th Cir. 2000) (requiring courts 2022Seeking to open up this proceeding to the public, the newspaper publisher has not only asked us to unseal our “sealing order” but has also asked us to provide “constitutionally- 1 See Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 574, 589-90 (1981) (Richmond II) (holding that “interested members of the public should have the right to be heard”); Shenandoah Publ’g House v. Fanning, 235 Va. 253, 259 (1988) (applying the procedural guidelines announced in Richmond II to judicial records in civil proceedings); cf. Ashcroft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288 , 302 (4th Cir. 2000) (requiring courts | 1 | 2 |
Allison v. Browngreen1 sentence2026He notes that the circuit court acknowledged he pled an “as-applied First Amendment challenge,” argues this challenge adequately described “what is commonly called a First Amendment Retaliation Claim,” and asserts that to distinguish between the two is to make “a distinction without a difference.” “[E]very litigant is entitled to be told by his adversary in plain and explicit language what is his ground of complaint or defense.” Lehmann v. WFV Holdings, LLC, 80 Va. App. 802 , 812 (2024) (quoting Grayson v. Westwood Bldgs., L.P., 300 Va. 25 , 69 (2021)); see also Allison v. Brown, 293 Va. 617, | 1 | 1 |
Brian Jeffrey Turner v. Commonwealth of Virginiagreen2 sentences2024Id. at 463 . - 18 - can we say an abuse of discretion has occurred.” Turner v. Commonwealth, 65 Va. App. 312, 327 (2015) (quoting Grattan v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 602, 620 (2009)). 1. 2024Id. at 463 . - 18 - can we say an abuse of discretion has occurred.” Turner v. Commonwealth, 65 Va. App. 312, 327 (2015) (quoting Grattan v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 602, 620 (2009)). 1. | 1 | 1 |
Grattan v. Com.green2 sentences2024Id. at 463 . - 18 - can we say an abuse of discretion has occurred.” Turner v. Commonwealth, 65 Va. App. 312, 327 (2015) (quoting Grattan v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 602, 620 (2009)). 1. 2024Id. at 463 . - 18 - can we say an abuse of discretion has occurred.” Turner v. Commonwealth, 65 Va. App. 312, 327 (2015) (quoting Grattan v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 602, 620 (2009)). 1. | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Knight Publishing Company D/B/A the Charlotte Observergreen2 sentences2022Seeking to open up this proceeding to the public, the newspaper publisher has not only asked us to unseal our “sealing order” but has also asked us to provide “constitutionally- 1 See Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 574, 589-90 (1981) (Richmond II) (holding that “interested members of the public should have the right to be heard”); Shenandoah Publ’g House v. Fanning, 235 Va. 253, 259 (1988) (applying the procedural guidelines announced in Richmond II to judicial records in civil proceedings); cf. Ashcroft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288 , 302 (4th Cir. 2000) (requiring courts 2022Seeking to open up this proceeding to the public, the newspaper publisher has not only asked us to unseal our “sealing order” but has also asked us to provide “constitutionally- 1 See Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 574, 589-90 (1981) (Richmond II) (holding that “interested members of the public should have the right to be heard”); Shenandoah Publ’g House v. Fanning, 235 Va. 253, 259 (1988) (applying the procedural guidelines announced in Richmond II to judicial records in civil proceedings); cf. Ashcroft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288 , 302 (4th Cir. 2000) (requiring courts | 1 | 1 |
Greg Rushford, the Washington Post Company, Intervenor v. The New Yorker Magazine, Inc., and William Shawn Reneta Adlergreen2 sentences2022Seeking to open up this proceeding to the public, the newspaper publisher has not only asked us to unseal our “sealing order” but has also asked us to provide “constitutionally- 1 See Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 574, 589-90 (1981) (Richmond II) (holding that “interested members of the public should have the right to be heard”); Shenandoah Publ’g House v. Fanning, 235 Va. 253, 259 (1988) (applying the procedural guidelines announced in Richmond II to judicial records in civil proceedings); cf. Ashcroft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288 , 302 (4th Cir. 2000) (requiring courts 2022Seeking to open up this proceeding to the public, the newspaper publisher has not only asked us to unseal our “sealing order” but has also asked us to provide “constitutionally- 1 See Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 574, 589-90 (1981) (Richmond II) (holding that “interested members of the public should have the right to be heard”); Shenandoah Publ’g House v. Fanning, 235 Va. 253, 259 (1988) (applying the procedural guidelines announced in Richmond II to judicial records in civil proceedings); cf. Ashcroft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288 , 302 (4th Cir. 2000) (requiring courts | 1 | 1 |
St. Amant v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2011Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 732 , 88 S. Ct. 1323, 1326 (1968). 2011Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 732 , 88 S. Ct. 1323, 1326 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Andrew Shain Sid Gaulden Cindi Ross Scoppe Schuyler Kropf, United States of America v. Jefferson Marion Long, Jr., A/K/A \Bud\" Long"green2 sentences2004Therefore, “the absence of confidentiality or vindictiveness in the facts of this case fatally undermines the reporters’ claim to a First Amendment privilege.” Id. 2004Therefore, “the absence of confidentiality or vindictiveness in the facts of this case fatally undermines the reporters’ claim to a First Amendment privilege.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Corp.green2 sentences2002For example, the Supreme Court stated in Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Corp., 528 U.S. 32, 38 (1999): “The traditional rule is that ‘a person to whom a statute may constitutionally be applied may not challenge that statute on the ground that it may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to others in situations not before the Court.’ New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 767 (1982) (citing Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 610 (1973)). 2002For example, the Supreme Court stated in Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Corp., 528 U.S. 32, 38 (1999): “The traditional rule is that ‘a person to whom a statute may constitutionally be applied may not challenge that statute on the ground that it may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to others in situations not before the Court.’ New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 767 (1982) (citing Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 610 (1973)). | 1 | 1 |
New York v. Ferbergreen2 sentences2002For example, the Supreme Court stated in Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Corp., 528 U.S. 32, 38 (1999): “The traditional rule is that ‘a person to whom a statute may constitutionally be applied may not challenge that statute on the ground that it may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to others in situations not before the Court.’ New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 767 (1982) (citing Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 610 (1973)). 2002For example, the Supreme Court stated in Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Corp., 528 U.S. 32, 38 (1999): “The traditional rule is that ‘a person to whom a statute may constitutionally be applied may not challenge that statute on the ground that it may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to others in situations not before the Court.’ New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 767 (1982) (citing Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 610 (1973)). | 1 | 1 |
| Perkins v. Commonwealthgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehartgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Virginia v. Hicks
green
2 sentences2006As the Supreme Court recently said, “The First Amendment doctrine of overbreadth is an exception to our normal rule regarding the standards for facial challenges.” Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U.S. 113, 118 , 123 S.Ct. 2191, 2196 , 156 L.Ed.2d 148 (2003). 2006As the Supreme Court recently said, “The First Amendment doctrine of overbreadth is an exception to our normal rule regarding the standards for facial challenges.” Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U.S. 113, 118 , 123 S.Ct. 2191, 2196 , 156 L.Ed.2d 148 (2003). | 3 | 2005–2006 |
Connick Ex Rel. Parish of Orleans v. Myers
green
2 sentences2024“The inquiry into the protected status of speech is one of law, not fact.” Connick, 461 U.S. at 148 n.7. 2024“The inquiry into the protected status of speech is one of law, not fact.” Connick, 461 U.S. at 148 n.7. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Grandbouche v. Clancy
green
2 sentences2026The trial court must also determine the validity of the claimed First Amendment privilege.” Id. (citation omitted). 2026Id. at 1467 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Coleman v. City of Richmond
green
2 sentences2024“Only when reasonable jurists could not differ 10 Shaw thus misplaces his reliance on Coleman v. City of Richmond, 5 Va. App. 459 (1988), where we applied the overbreadth exception to consider the defendant’s First Amendment challenge to the loitering ordinance under which he was convicted. 2024“Only when reasonable jurists could not differ 10 Shaw thus misplaces his reliance on Coleman v. City of Richmond, 5 Va. App. 459 (1988), where we applied the overbreadth exception to consider the defendant’s First Amendment challenge to the loitering ordinance under which he was convicted. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
cluster 769389
green
2 sentences2022Seeking to open up this proceeding to the public, the newspaper publisher has not only asked us to unseal our “sealing order” but has also asked us to provide “constitutionally- 1 See Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 574, 589-90 (1981) (Richmond II) (holding that “interested members of the public should have the right to be heard”); Shenandoah Publ’g House v. Fanning, 235 Va. 253, 259 (1988) (applying the procedural guidelines announced in Richmond II to judicial records in civil proceedings); cf. Ashcroft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288 , 302 (4th Cir. 2000) (requiring courts 2022Seeking to open up this proceeding to the public, the newspaper publisher has not only asked us to unseal our “sealing order” but has also asked us to provide “constitutionally- 1 See Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 574, 589-90 (1981) (Richmond II) (holding that “interested members of the public should have the right to be heard”); Shenandoah Publ’g House v. Fanning, 235 Va. 253, 259 (1988) (applying the procedural guidelines announced in Richmond II to judicial records in civil proceedings); cf. Ashcroft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288 , 302 (4th Cir. 2000) (requiring courts | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Packingham v. North Carolina
green
1 sentence2019Effect on Speech and Association Given that the challenged statutory requirements advance a significant governmental interest, appellant can prevail in his First Amendment challenge only if he can show that those requirements are not "narrowly tailored," id. (quoting McCullen v. Coakley , 573 U.S. 464 , 486, 134 S.Ct. 2518 , 2534-35, 189 L.Ed.2d 502 (2014) ), and "burden substantially more speech than necessary" to advance that interest, Humanitarian Law Project , 561 U.S. at 27 , 130 S.Ct. at 2723 -24 (quoting Turner Broad. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project
green
2 sentences2019Effect on Speech and Association Given that the challenged statutory requirements advance a significant governmental interest, appellant can prevail in his First Amendment challenge only if he can show that those requirements are not "narrowly tailored," id. (quoting McCullen v. Coakley , 573 U.S. 464 , 486, 134 S.Ct. 2518 , 2534-35, 189 L.Ed.2d 502 (2014) ), and "burden substantially more speech than necessary" to advance that interest, Humanitarian Law Project , 561 U.S. at 27 , 130 S.Ct. at 2723 -24 (quoting Turner Broad. 2019Effect on Speech and Association Given that the challenged statutory requirements advance a significant governmental interest, appellant can prevail in his First Amendment challenge only if he can show that those requirements are not "narrowly tailored," id. (quoting McCullen v. Coakley , 573 U.S. 464 , 486, 134 S.Ct. 2518 , 2534-35, 189 L.Ed.2d 502 (2014) ), and "burden substantially more speech than necessary" to advance that interest, Humanitarian Law Project , 561 U.S. at 27 , 130 S.Ct. at 2723 -24 (quoting Turner Broad. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
green
2 sentences2019Sys., Inc. , 520 U.S. at 189 , 117 S.Ct. at 1186 ). 2019Sys., Inc. , 520 U.S. at 189 , 117 S.Ct. at 1186 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
McCullen v. Coakley
green
2 sentences2019Effect on Speech and Association Given that the challenged statutory requirements advance a significant governmental interest, appellant can prevail in his First Amendment challenge only if he can show that those requirements are not "narrowly tailored," id. (quoting McCullen v. Coakley , 573 U.S. 464 , 486, 134 S.Ct. 2518 , 2534-35, 189 L.Ed.2d 502 (2014) ), and "burden substantially more speech than necessary" to advance that interest, Humanitarian Law Project , 561 U.S. at 27 , 130 S.Ct. at 2723 -24 (quoting Turner Broad. 2019Effect on Speech and Association Given that the challenged statutory requirements advance a significant governmental interest, appellant can prevail in his First Amendment challenge only if he can show that those requirements are not "narrowly tailored," id. (quoting McCullen v. Coakley , 573 U.S. 464 , 486, 134 S.Ct. 2518 , 2534-35, 189 L.Ed.2d 502 (2014) ), and "burden substantially more speech than necessary" to advance that interest, Humanitarian Law Project , 561 U.S. at 27 , 130 S.Ct. at 2723 -24 (quoting Turner Broad. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley
green
2 sentences2014Id. (citing Consol. 2014Id. (citing Consol. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Stanley v. City of Norfolk
green
2 sentences2008Stanley concerned a charge of disorderly conduct during an assault and raised a due process overbreadth challenge and not a First Amendment claim. 218 Va. at 505 -06 , 237 S.E.2d at 800 . 2008Stanley concerned a charge of disorderly conduct during an assault and raised a due process overbreadth challenge and not a First Amendment claim. 218 Va. at 505 -06 , 237 S.E.2d at 800 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Commonwealth v. Hicks
green
2 sentences2008In that case the majority applied the United States Supreme Court's exception to the standing rule reciting that "in the context of a First Amendment challenge, a litigant may challenge government action granting government officials standardless discretion even if that government action as applied to the litigant is constitutionally permissible." Id. at 55 , 563 S.E.2d at 678 . 2008In that case the majority applied the United States Supreme Court's exception to the standing rule reciting that "in the context of a First Amendment challenge, a litigant may challenge government action granting government officials standardless discretion even if that government action as applied to the litigant is constitutionally permissible." Id. at 55 , 563 S.E.2d at 678 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Esper Bonding Co. v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2008Esper Bonding Co. involved the Commonwealth's attempt to assert third party rights regarding the forfeiture of a bail bond, which we denied. 222 Va. at 597 -98 , 283 S.E.2d at 186 . 2008Esper Bonding Co. involved the Commonwealth's attempt to assert third party rights regarding the forfeiture of a bail bond, which we denied. 222 Va. at 597 -98 , 283 S.E.2d at 186 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
County Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allen
green
2 sentences2005County Court of Ulster County v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 154-55 , 99 S.Ct. 2213, 2223-24 , 60 L.Ed.2d 777 (1979). 2005County Court of Ulster County v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 154-55 , 99 S.Ct. 2213, 2223-24 , 60 L.Ed.2d 777 (1979). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission
green
2 sentences2004The Supreme Court has noted the grave importance of protecting the freedom to publish anonymously, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995). 2004The Supreme Court has noted the grave importance of protecting the freedom to publish anonymously, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah
green
1 sentence2001This test has, to date, only been applied by the Supreme Court in cases involving criminal statutes or ordinances, see, e.g., Smith', Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), and may not be applicable if the free exercise claim is invoked with another First Amendment claim. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith red | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Hernandez v. Superintendent, Fredericksburg-Rappahannock Joint Security Center green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Leathers v. Medlock green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Valentine v. Chrestensen red | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc. green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.