21 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana 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 |
|---|---|---|
Van Sant v. Stategreen2 sentences1994"An overbreadth challenge asserts that the statute is not drawn in sufficiently narrow terms and foreseeably prohibits legitimate conduct." Id. 1991"An overbreadth challenge asserts that the statute is not drawn in sufficiently narrow terms and foreseeably prohibits legitimate conduct." Id. (citations omitted). | 2 | 5 |
Price v. Stategreen2 sentences2023See also Price, 622 N.E.2d at 958 (passing over an overbreadth challenge and addressing the issue on an as-applied basis); Martin v. Richey, 711 N.E.2d 1273, 1279 (Ind. 1999) (same). 26 Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 48. 27 Id. at 47. 28 505 U.S. at 846 . 29 Oral Argument at 48:35–49:22. 1998Jackson, 634 N.E.2d at 536 (citing Price v. State, 622 N.E.2d 954, 958 (Ind.1993)). | 2 | 3 |
Andrews v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Stated differently, an overbreadth challenge evaluates a statute based “not upon the [party’s] conduct, but rather upon legitimate conduct which might foreseeably be prohibited by a statute which is not drawn in sufficiently narrow terms.” Andrews v. State, 505 N.E.2d 815, 822-23 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987). 2013Stated differently, an overbreadth challenge evaluates a statute based “not upon the [party’s] conduct, but rather upon legitimate conduct which might foreseeably be prohibited by a statute which is not drawn in sufficiently narrow terms.” Andrews v. State, 505 N.E.2d 815, 822-23 (Ind.Ct.App. 1987). | 2 | 2 |
Osborne v. Ohiogreen2 sentences1993See Osborne, 495 U.S. at 112-14 , 110 S.Ct. at 1697-99 . 1992Osborne, supra; Hill, supra. Authoritative constructions by state courts control the overbreadth analysis. | 2 | 2 |
Matheney v. Stategreen1 sentence2024The overbreadth doctrine safeguards constitutional freedoms from freefalling into “the ambit of a statute written more broadly than needed to proscribe illegitimate and unprotected conduct.” Matheney v. State, 688 N.E.2d 883, 905 (Ind. 1997). | 1 | 1 |
Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincentgreen2 sentences2024And “the mere fact that one can conceive of some impermissible applications of a statute is not sufficient to render it susceptible to an overbreadth challenge.” Id. (quoting Members of City of Council of L.A. v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 800 (1984)). 2024And “the mere fact that one can conceive of some impermissible applications of a statute is not sufficient to render it susceptible to an overbreadth challenge.” Id. (quoting Members of City of Council of L.A. v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 800 (1984)). | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Richeygreen1 sentence2023See also Price, 622 N.E.2d at 958 (passing over an overbreadth challenge and addressing the issue on an as-applied basis); Martin v. Richey, 711 N.E.2d 1273, 1279 (Ind. 1999) (same). 26 Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 48. 27 Id. at 47. 28 505 U.S. at 846 . 29 Oral Argument at 48:35–49:22. | 1 | 1 |
Dream Palace v. County Of Maricopagreen1 sentence2018See id. (quoting Allen v. Wright , 468 U.S. 737 , 751, 104 S.Ct. 3315 , 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984), abrogated on other grounds , which noted that the overbreadth doctrine functions as an exception to " 'the general prohibition on a litigant's raising another person's legal rights' "). | 1 | 1 |
Allen v. Wrightred2 sentences2018See id. (quoting Allen v. Wright , 468 U.S. 737 , 751, 104 S.Ct. 3315 , 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984), abrogated on other grounds , which noted that the overbreadth doctrine functions as an exception to " 'the general prohibition on a litigant's raising another person's legal rights' "). 2018See id. (quoting Allen v. Wright , 468 U.S. 737 , 751, 104 S.Ct. 3315 , 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984), abrogated on other grounds , which noted that the overbreadth doctrine functions as an exception to " 'the general prohibition on a litigant's raising another person's legal rights' "). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2013See U.S. v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 292 , 128 S.Ct. 1830 , 170 L.Ed.2d 650 (2008). 2013See U.S. v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 292 , 128 S.Ct. 1830 , 170 L.Ed.2d 650 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
Wells v. Stategreen2 sentences2005In Wells v. State, 170 Ind.App. 29, 35 , 351 N.E.2d 43, 47 (1976), we recognized that exception to the rule of non-standing where First Amendment rights are involved, but we noted "even then, where conduct rather than speech is involved and the appellant stands at the hard core of permissible regulation, his standing to assert facial overbreadth will not be recognized." Id. 2005In Wells v. State, 170 Ind.App. 29, 35 , 351 N.E.2d 43, 47 (1976), we recognized that exception to the rule of non-standing where First Amendment rights are involved, but we noted "even then, where conduct rather than speech is involved and the appellant stands at the hard core of permissible regulation, his standing to assert facial overbreadth will not be recognized." Id. | 1 | 1 |
Jerry Lee Staley v. Kurt Jonesgreen1 sentence2005Staley v. Jones, 239 F.3d 769, 784 (6th Cir.2001) (citing Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 , 93 S.Ct. 2908 , 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973)). | 1 | 1 |
Indiana High School Athletic Ass'n v. Schafergreen2 sentences1996See IHSAA v. Schafer, 598 N.E.2d 540, 553 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (federal decisions hold that under traditional equal protection scrutiny a rule may not be invalidated due to overbreadth). 1996See IHSAA v. Schafer, 598 N.E.2d 540, 553 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (federal decisions hold that under traditional equal protection scrutiny a rule may not be invalidated due to overbreadth). | 1 | 1 |
Cooper v. Oregon School Activities Ass'ngreen2 sentences1992See Cooper v. Oregon School Activities Ass'n (1981), 52 Or.App. 425, 440 , 629 P.2d 386, 395 , reh'g denied 291 Or. 504 , 634 P.2d 1347 ("We are aware that one state court has used overbreadth as a basis for declaring a similar transfer rule to be in violation of the federal Equal Protection Clause. [citing Sturrup ]. 1992See Cooper v. Oregon School Activities Ass'n (1981), 52 Or.App. 425, 440 , 629 P.2d 386, 395 , reh'g denied 291 Or. 504 , 634 P.2d 1347 ("We are aware that one state court has used overbreadth as a basis for declaring a similar transfer rule to be in violation of the federal Equal Protection Clause. [citing Sturrup ]. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis
green
2 sentences1976Moose Lodge v. Irvis, (1972) 407 U.S. 163 , 92 S.Ct. 1965 , 32 L.Ed.2d 627 . 1976Moose Lodge v. Irvis, (1972) 407 U.S. 163 , 92 S.Ct. 1965 , 32 L.Ed.2d 627 . | 2 | 1976–1976 |
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey
red
1 sentence2023See also Price, 622 N.E.2d at 958 (passing over an overbreadth challenge and addressing the issue on an as-applied basis); Martin v. Richey, 711 N.E.2d 1273, 1279 (Ind. 1999) (same). 26 Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 48. 27 Id. at 47. 28 505 U.S. at 846 . 29 Oral Argument at 48:35–49:22. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Hallandale Professional Fire Fighters Local 2238 v. City Of Hallandale
green
2 sentences2018Hallandale Professional Fire Fighters Local 2238 v. City of Hallandale , 922 F.2d 756 , 760 n. 4 (11th Cir. 1991) (clarifying that the overbreadth doctrine addresses "the standing aspect of justiciability, not ripeness ") (emphasis in original). 2018Even in an overbreadth claim, plaintiffs must " 'demonstrate an injury in fact," as required under the ripeness doctrine, "to invoke a ... court's jurisdiction.' " Id. (quoting 4805 Convoy, Inc. , 183 F.3d at 1112 ). [24] Hulse has not designated any evidence that any other potential plaintiff has suffered or will suffer an imminent injury in fact as a result of General Principle 6. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Nunez v. City Of San Diego
green
1 sentence2018In such cases, the doctrine " 'serves to overcome what would otherwise be a plaintiff's lack of standing.' " 4805 Convoy, Inc. v. City of San Diego , 183 F.3d 1108 , 1112 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Nunez v. City of San Diego , 114 F.3d 935 , 949 (9th Cir. 1997) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
4805 Convoy, Inc., a California Corporation v. City of San Diego, a Political Subdivision of the State of California
green
2 sentences2018In such cases, the doctrine " 'serves to overcome what would otherwise be a plaintiff's lack of standing.' " 4805 Convoy, Inc. v. City of San Diego , 183 F.3d 1108 , 1112 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Nunez v. City of San Diego , 114 F.3d 935 , 949 (9th Cir. 1997) ). 2018Even in an overbreadth claim, plaintiffs must " 'demonstrate an injury in fact," as required under the ripeness doctrine, "to invoke a ... court's jurisdiction.' " Id. (quoting 4805 Convoy, Inc. , 183 F.3d at 1112 ). [24] Hulse has not designated any evidence that any other potential plaintiff has suffered or will suffer an imminent injury in fact as a result of General Principle 6. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Broadrick v. Oklahoma
green
2 sentences2005Staley v. Jones, 239 F.3d 769, 784 (6th Cir.2001) (citing Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 , 93 S.Ct. 2908 , 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973)). 2005Staley v. Jones, 239 F.3d 769, 784 (6th Cir.2001) (citing Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 , 93 S.Ct. 2908 , 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973)). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Jackson v. State
green
1 sentence1998Jackson, 634 N.E.2d at 536 (citing Price v. State, 622 N.E.2d 954, 958 (Ind.1993)). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
United States v. James Griggs Raines
green
2 sentences1993United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17 , 80 S.Ct. 519 , 4 L.Ed.2d 524 (1960). 1993United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17 , 80 S.Ct. 519 , 4 L.Ed.2d 524 (1960). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Ward v. Rock Against Racism
green
2 sentences1992Osborne, supra, 495 U.S. at 1698, 1701-02 ; Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989) 491 U.S. 781, 795-96 , 109 S.Ct. 2746, 2756 , 105 L.Ed.2d 661 . 1992Osborne, supra, 495 U.S. at 1698, 1701-02 ; Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989) 491 U.S. 781, 795-96 , 109 S.Ct. 2746, 2756 , 105 L.Ed.2d 661 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc.
green
2 sentences1979As we said in Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 114 , 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2302 , 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972): ‘Because overbroad laws, like vague ones, deter privileged activity, our cases firmly establish appellant's standing to raise an overbreadth challenge.’ ” Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., (1975) 422 U.S. 922, 933 , 95 S.Ct. 2561, 2568-69 , 45 L.Ed.2d 648, 660 . 1979As we said in Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 114 , 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2302 , 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972): ‘Because overbroad laws, like vague ones, deter privileged activity, our cases firmly establish appellant's standing to raise an overbreadth challenge.’ ” Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., (1975) 422 U.S. 922, 933 , 95 S.Ct. 2561, 2568-69 , 45 L.Ed.2d 648, 660 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Grayned v. City of Rockford
green
2 sentences1979As we said in Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 114 , 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2302 , 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972): ‘Because overbroad laws, like vague ones, deter privileged activity, our cases firmly establish appellant's standing to raise an overbreadth challenge.’ ” Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., (1975) 422 U.S. 922, 933 , 95 S.Ct. 2561, 2568-69 , 45 L.Ed.2d 648, 660 . 1979As we said in Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 114 , 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2302 , 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972): ‘Because overbroad laws, like vague ones, deter privileged activity, our cases firmly establish appellant's standing to raise an overbreadth challenge.’ ” Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., (1975) 422 U.S. 922, 933 , 95 S.Ct. 2561, 2568-69 , 45 L.Ed.2d 648, 660 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Vacendak v. State
green
2 sentences1976Vacendak v. State (1976), 264 Ind. 101 , 340 N.E.2d 352 citing Moose Lodge v. Irvis (1972), 407 U.S. 163 , 92 S.Ct. 1965 , 32 L.Ed.2d 627 . 1976Vacendak v. State (1976), 264 Ind. 101 , 340 N.E.2d 352 citing Moose Lodge v. Irvis (1972), 407 U.S. 163 , 92 S.Ct. 1965 , 32 L.Ed.2d 627 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.