23 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1977–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut 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 sentences1993Husti v. Zuckerman Property Enterprises, Ltd., supra. A party has standing to raise an overbreadth claim, however, “only if ‘there [is] a realistic danger that the statute will significantly compromise recognized First Amendment protections of parties not before the Court . . . .’ Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, [supra, 801] . . . .” Id.; see also Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 613-15 , 93 S. Ct. 2908 , 37 L. 1993Husti v. Zuckerman Property Enterprises, Ltd., supra. A party has standing to raise an overbreadth claim, however, “only if ‘there [is] a realistic danger that the statute will significantly compromise recognized First Amendment protections of parties not before the Court . . . .’ Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, [supra, 801] . . . .” Id.; see also Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 613-15 , 93 S. Ct. 2908 , 37 L. | 2 | 8 |
Schall v. Martingreen2 sentences2011Ed. 2d 697 (1987) (“we have not recognized an ‘overbreadth’ doctrine outside the limited context of the [f]irst [a]mendment”); Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253 , 268-69 n.18, 104 S. Ct. 2403 , 81 L. 2011Ed. 2d 697 (1987) (“we have not recognized an ‘overbreadth’ doctrine outside the limited context of the [f]irst [a]mendment”); Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253 , 268-69 n.18, 104 S. Ct. 2403 , 81 L. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Ehlersgreen2 sentences2026See part I A of this opinion; see also State v. Ehlers, 252 Conn. 579, 585 , 750 A.2d 1079 (2000). 2026See part I A of this opinion; see also State v. Ehlers, 252 Conn. 579, 585 , 750 A.2d 1079 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Maderagreen2 sentences2023See, e.g., State v. Kelley, 206 Conn. 323 , 333–36, 537 A.2d 483 (1988) (Supreme Court declined to review defendant’s claim regarding validity of transfer to regular criminal docket from juvenile docket following conditional plea of nolo contendere); State v. Greene, 81 Conn. App. 492 , 501–502, 839 A.2d 1284 (Appellate Court declined to review defendant’s claim regarding denial of motion for disclo- sure because it was not within ambit of § 54-94a), cert. denied, 268 Conn. 923 , 848 A.2d 472 (2004); see generally State v. Madera, 198 Conn. 92 , 98–99, 503 A.2d 136 (1985). 22 In light of our d 2023See, e.g., State v. Kelley, 206 Conn. 323 , 333–36, 537 A.2d 483 (1988) (Supreme Court declined to review defendant’s claim regarding validity of transfer to regular criminal docket from juvenile docket following conditional plea of nolo contendere); State v. Greene, 81 Conn. App. 492 , 501–502, 839 A.2d 1284 (Appellate Court declined to review defendant’s claim regarding denial of motion for disclo- sure because it was not within ambit of § 54-94a), cert. denied, 268 Conn. 923 , 848 A.2d 472 (2004); see generally State v. Madera, 198 Conn. 92 , 98–99, 503 A.2d 136 (1985). 22 In light of our d | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kelleygreen2 sentences2023See, e.g., State v. Kelley, 206 Conn. 323 , 333–36, 537 A.2d 483 (1988) (Supreme Court declined to review defendant’s claim regarding validity of transfer to regular criminal docket from juvenile docket following conditional plea of nolo contendere); State v. Greene, 81 Conn. App. 492 , 501–502, 839 A.2d 1284 (Appellate Court declined to review defendant’s claim regarding denial of motion for disclo- sure because it was not within ambit of § 54-94a), cert. denied, 268 Conn. 923 , 848 A.2d 472 (2004); see generally State v. Madera, 198 Conn. 92 , 98–99, 503 A.2d 136 (1985). 22 In light of our d 2023See, e.g., State v. Kelley, 206 Conn. 323 , 333–36, 537 A.2d 483 (1988) (Supreme Court declined to review defendant’s claim regarding validity of transfer to regular criminal docket from juvenile docket following conditional plea of nolo contendere); State v. Greene, 81 Conn. App. 492 , 501–502, 839 A.2d 1284 (Appellate Court declined to review defendant’s claim regarding denial of motion for disclo- sure because it was not within ambit of § 54-94a), cert. denied, 268 Conn. 923 , 848 A.2d 472 (2004); see generally State v. Madera, 198 Conn. 92 , 98–99, 503 A.2d 136 (1985). 22 In light of our d | 1 | 1 |
State v. Goldinggreen2 sentences2023See, e.g., State v. Kelley, 206 Conn. 323 , 333–36, 537 A.2d 483 (1988) (Supreme Court declined to review defendant’s claim regarding validity of transfer to regular criminal docket from juvenile docket following conditional plea of nolo contendere); State v. Greene, 81 Conn. App. 492 , 501–502, 839 A.2d 1284 (Appellate Court declined to review defendant’s claim regarding denial of motion for disclo- sure because it was not within ambit of § 54-94a), cert. denied, 268 Conn. 923 , 848 A.2d 472 (2004); see generally State v. Madera, 198 Conn. 92 , 98–99, 503 A.2d 136 (1985). 22 In light of our d 2023See, e.g., State v. Kelley, 206 Conn. 323 , 333–36, 537 A.2d 483 (1988) (Supreme Court declined to review defendant’s claim regarding validity of transfer to regular criminal docket from juvenile docket following conditional plea of nolo contendere); State v. Greene, 81 Conn. App. 492 , 501–502, 839 A.2d 1284 (Appellate Court declined to review defendant’s claim regarding denial of motion for disclo- sure because it was not within ambit of § 54-94a), cert. denied, 268 Conn. 923 , 848 A.2d 472 (2004); see generally State v. Madera, 198 Conn. 92 , 98–99, 503 A.2d 136 (1985). 22 In light of our d | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Salernogreen2 sentences2011Ed. 2d 148 (2003) (“[t]he [f]irst [a]mendment doctrine of overbreadth is an exception to [the] normal rule regarding the standards for facial challenges”); United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 , 107 S. Ct. 2095 , 95 L. 2011Ed. 2d 148 (2003) (“[t]he [f]irst [a]mendment doctrine of overbreadth is an exception to [the] normal rule regarding the standards for facial challenges”); United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 , 107 S. Ct. 2095 , 95 L. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Allied Oil Corp.green1 sentence2011Ed. 2d 148 (2003) (“[t]he [f]irst [a]mendment doctrine of overbreadth is an exception to [the] normal rule regarding the standards for facial challenges”); United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 , 107 S. Ct. 2095 , 95 L. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cookgreen2 sentences2011See, e.g., State v. Cook, 287 Conn. 237, 245 , 947 A.2d 307 , cert. denied, 555 U.S. 970 , 129 S. Ct. 464 , 172 L. 2011See, e.g., State v. Cook, 287 Conn. 237, 245 , 947 A.2d 307 , cert. denied, 555 U.S. 970 , 129 S. Ct. 464 , 172 L. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Atterberrygreen1 sentence2011See, e.g., State v. Cook, 287 Conn. 237, 245 , 947 A.2d 307 , cert. denied, 555 U.S. 970 , 129 S. Ct. 464 , 172 L. | 1 | 1 |
Virginia v. Blackgreen2 sentences2007The defendant argues that although the state may prohibit, through its criminal statutes, the making of “true threats”; see Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 359 , 123 S. Ct. 1536 , 155 L. 2007The defendant argues that although the state may prohibit, through its criminal statutes, the making of “true threats”; see Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 359 , 123 S. Ct. 1536 , 155 L. | 1 | 1 |
Benjamin v. Baileygreen2 sentences2000See, e.g., Benjamin v. Bailey, 234 Conn. 455, 482-84 , 662 A.2d 1226 (1995). 2000See, e.g., Benjamin v. Bailey, 234 Conn. 455, 482-84 , 662 A.2d 1226 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rossgreen2 sentences2000See State v. Ross, 230 Conn. 183, 249-52 , 646 A.2d 1318 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1165 , 115 S. Ct. 1133 , 130 L. 2000See State v. Ross, 230 Conn. 183, 249-52 , 646 A.2d 1318 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1165 , 115 S. Ct. 1133 , 130 L. | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Schaefergreen1 sentence2000See State v. Ross, 230 Conn. 183, 249-52 , 646 A.2d 1318 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1165 , 115 S. Ct. 1133 , 130 L. | 1 | 1 |
Njoku v. Schmidtgreen1 sentence2000See State v. Ross, 230 Conn. 183, 249-52 , 646 A.2d 1318 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1165 , 115 S. Ct. 1133 , 130 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Husti v. Zuckerman Property Enterprises, Ltd.green | 1 | 1 |
| Bates v. State Bar of Arizonagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ramos v. Town of Vernon
green
2 sentences2003Ramos v. Vernon, 254 Conn. 799, 812 , 761 A.2d 705 (2000). 2003Ramos v. Vernon, 254 Conn. 799, 812 , 761 A.2d 705 (2000). | 2 | 2002–2003 |
State v. Weber
green
2 sentences2001State v. Weber , 6 Conn. App. 407 , 414 (1986). 2001State v. Weber , 6 Conn. App. 407 , 414 (1986). | 2 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Rivera
green
2 sentences1998A party has standing to raise an overbreadth claim, however, only if there [is] a realistic danger that the statute will significantly compromise recognized First Amendment protections of parties not before the Court . . . .” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rivera, 30 Conn. App. 224, 229-30 , 619 A.2d 1146 , cert. denied, 225 Conn. 913 , 623 A.2d 1024 (1993). 1998A party has standing to raise an overbreadth claim, however, only if there [is] a realistic danger that the statute will significantly compromise recognized First Amendment protections of parties not before the Court . . . .” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rivera, 30 Conn. App. 224, 229-30 , 619 A.2d 1146 , cert. denied, 225 Conn. 913 , 623 A.2d 1024 (1993). | 2 | 1993–1998 |
Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent
green
2 sentences2026It was the defen- dant’s burden to demonstrate a ‘realistic danger that the statute itself will significantly compromise recognized [f]irst [a]mendment protections of parties not before the [c]ourt . . . .’ Members of City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, [ 466 U.S. 789, 801 , 104 S. Ct. 2118 , 80 L. 2026It was the defen- dant’s burden to demonstrate a ‘realistic danger that the statute itself will significantly compromise recognized [f]irst [a]mendment protections of parties not before the [c]ourt . . . .’ Members of City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, [ 466 U.S. 789, 801 , 104 S. Ct. 2118 , 80 L. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
New York v. Ferber
green
2 sentences2023New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 769 , 102 S. Ct. 3348 , 73 L. 2023New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 769 , 102 S. Ct. 3348 , 73 L. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Greene
green
1 sentence2023See, e.g., State v. Kelley, 206 Conn. 323 , 333–36, 537 A.2d 483 (1988) (Supreme Court declined to review defendant’s claim regarding validity of transfer to regular criminal docket from juvenile docket following conditional plea of nolo contendere); State v. Greene, 81 Conn. App. 492 , 501–502, 839 A.2d 1284 (Appellate Court declined to review defendant’s claim regarding denial of motion for disclo- sure because it was not within ambit of § 54-94a), cert. denied, 268 Conn. 923 , 848 A.2d 472 (2004); see generally State v. Madera, 198 Conn. 92 , 98–99, 503 A.2d 136 (1985). 22 In light of our d | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Rosario
green
1 sentence2023See, e.g., State v. Kelley, 206 Conn. 323 , 333–36, 537 A.2d 483 (1988) (Supreme Court declined to review defendant’s claim regarding validity of transfer to regular criminal docket from juvenile docket following conditional plea of nolo contendere); State v. Greene, 81 Conn. App. 492 , 501–502, 839 A.2d 1284 (Appellate Court declined to review defendant’s claim regarding denial of motion for disclo- sure because it was not within ambit of § 54-94a), cert. denied, 268 Conn. 923 , 848 A.2d 472 (2004); see generally State v. Madera, 198 Conn. 92 , 98–99, 503 A.2d 136 (1985). 22 In light of our d | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Greene
green
2 sentences2023See, e.g., State v. Kelley, 206 Conn. 323 , 333–36, 537 A.2d 483 (1988) (Supreme Court declined to review defendant’s claim regarding validity of transfer to regular criminal docket from juvenile docket following conditional plea of nolo contendere); State v. Greene, 81 Conn. App. 492 , 501–502, 839 A.2d 1284 (Appellate Court declined to review defendant’s claim regarding denial of motion for disclo- sure because it was not within ambit of § 54-94a), cert. denied, 268 Conn. 923 , 848 A.2d 472 (2004); see generally State v. Madera, 198 Conn. 92 , 98–99, 503 A.2d 136 (1985). 22 In light of our d 2023See, e.g., State v. Kelley, 206 Conn. 323 , 333–36, 537 A.2d 483 (1988) (Supreme Court declined to review defendant’s claim regarding validity of transfer to regular criminal docket from juvenile docket following conditional plea of nolo contendere); State v. Greene, 81 Conn. App. 492 , 501–502, 839 A.2d 1284 (Appellate Court declined to review defendant’s claim regarding denial of motion for disclo- sure because it was not within ambit of § 54-94a), cert. denied, 268 Conn. 923 , 848 A.2d 472 (2004); see generally State v. Madera, 198 Conn. 92 , 98–99, 503 A.2d 136 (1985). 22 In light of our d | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Your Mansion Real Estate, LLC v. RCN Capital Funding, LLC
neutral
1 sentence2023Specifically, a claim challenging the constitutionality of a statute ‘‘pre- sents a question of law over which our review is ple- nary.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Your Man- sion Real Estate, LLC v. RCN Capital Funding, LLC, 206 Conn. App. 316, 331 , 261 A.3d 110 , cert. denied, 339 Conn. 908 , 260 A.3d 1227 (2021). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In Re Shaw
green
1 sentence2023The analysis conducted by the Texas Court of Appeals in In re Shaw, 204 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. App. 2006), is instructive to our resolution of the overbreadth claim in the present case. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Leydon v. Town of Greenwich
green
2 sentences2011When invalidated for overbreadth, a law is not narrowed, but rather becomes wholly unenforceable until a legislature rewrites it or a properly authorized court construes it more narrowly.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Leydon v. Greenwich, 257 Conn. 318 , 347 n.33, 777 A.2d 552 (2001). 2011When invalidated for overbreadth, a law is not narrowed, but rather becomes wholly unenforceable until a legislature rewrites it or a properly authorized court construes it more narrowly.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Leydon v. Greenwich, 257 Conn. 318 , 347 n.33, 777 A.2d 552 (2001). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Linares
green
1 sentence2000This court has shown a clear willingness to consider facial challenges under the state constitution in two limited areas: (1) free speech claims predicated upon the overbreadth doctrine; e.g., State v. Linares, 232 Conn.. 345, 377-78, 655 A.2d 737 (1995); and (2) claims premised upon the vagueness doctrine. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Snyder
green
2 sentences1999A party has standing to raise an overbreadth claim, however, only if there [is] a realistic danger that the statute will significantly compromise recognized First Amendment protections of parties not before the Court . . . .” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Snyder, 49 Conn. App. 617, 623 , 717 A.2d 240 (1998). 1999A party has standing to raise an overbreadth claim, however, only if there [is] a realistic danger that the statute will significantly compromise recognized First Amendment protections of parties not before the Court . . . .” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Snyder, 49 Conn. App. 617, 623 , 717 A.2d 240 (1998). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Carabetta Builders, Inc. v. Hotz Corp.
green
1 sentence1998A party has standing to raise an overbreadth claim, however, only if there [is] a realistic danger that the statute will significantly compromise recognized First Amendment protections of parties not before the Court . . . .” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rivera, 30 Conn. App. 224, 229-30 , 619 A.2d 1146 , cert. denied, 225 Conn. 913 , 623 A.2d 1024 (1993). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Black v. London & Egazarian Associates, Inc.
green
1 sentence1998A party has standing to raise an overbreadth claim, however, only if there [is] a realistic danger that the statute will significantly compromise recognized First Amendment protections of parties not before the Court . . . .” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rivera, 30 Conn. App. 224, 229-30 , 619 A.2d 1146 , cert. denied, 225 Conn. 913 , 623 A.2d 1024 (1993). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| State v. Proto green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Ribotsky v. United States green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Jones v. Leidinger green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| State v. Williams green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn. green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Jenkins v. Wilkey green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Southern Railway Co. v. Ellington green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Dombrowski v. Pfister green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.