21 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2024 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maine 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Withamgreen2 sentences2024See State v. Witham, 2005 ME 79, ¶ 7 , 876 A.2d 40 (noting that a void-for-vagueness challenge is rooted in the due process clause). 24 prudential doctrines, . . . for example, whether the issue was raised below.”); see also Shea v. Louisiana, 470 U.S. 51 , 58 n.4 (1985) (noting the rule of retroactivity is “subject . . . to established principles of waiver, harmless error, and the like”). [¶41] Nevertheless, we will address the question of Counterman’s effect on the instant case because the application of the new standard announced in Counterman may have the potential to affect the outcome. 2024See State v. Witham, 2005 ME 79, ¶ 7 , 876 A.2d 40 (noting that a void-for-vagueness challenge is rooted in the due process clause). 24 prudential doctrines, . . . for example, whether the issue was raised below.”); see also Shea v. Louisiana, 470 U.S. 51 , 58 n.4 (1985) (noting the rule of retroactivity is “subject . . . to established principles of waiver, harmless error, and the like”). [¶41] Nevertheless, we will address the question of Counterman’s effect on the instant case because the application of the new standard announced in Counterman may have the potential to affect the outcome. | 3 | 3 |
Shapiro Bros. Shoe Co. v. Lewiston-Auburn Shoeworkers Protective Ass'ngreen2 sentences1976A statute which fails to meet this test, i. e., that “sets guidelines which would force men of general intelligence to guess at its meaning, leaving them without assurance that their behavior complies with legal requirements and forcing courts to be uncertain in their interpretation of the law,” Id., is characterized as “void for vagueness.” Although the void-for-vagueness doctrine receives its commonest application in the criminal law context, “[T]he doctrine has [also] been applied in instances where one must conform his conduct to a civil regulation.” Id. 1976A statute which fails to meet this test, i. e., that “sets guidelines which would force men of general intelligence to guess at its meaning, leaving them without assurance that their behavior complies with legal requirements and forcing courts to be uncertain in their interpretation of the law,” Id., is characterized as “void for vagueness.” Although the void-for-vagueness doctrine receives its commonest application in the criminal law context, “[T]he doctrine has [also] been applied in instances where one must conform his conduct to a civil regulation.” Id. | 2 | 3 |
State of Maine v. David Reckardsgreen2 sentences2022“In a void-for-vagueness challenge, we do not analyze the statute to ascertain if it is valid on its face, but instead assess the challenge by testing it in the circumstances of the individual case and considering whether the statutory language was sufficiently clear to give the defendant adequate notice that his conduct was proscribed.” State v. Reckards, 2015 ME 31, ¶ 4 , 113 A.3d 589 (quotation marks omitted). “[N]ot every ambiguity, uncertainty or imprecision of language in a statutory pattern is unconstitutional, and a statute will withstand a vagueness challenge if any reasonable constru 2022“In a void-for-vagueness challenge, we do not analyze the statute to ascertain if it is valid on its face, but instead assess the challenge by testing it in the circumstances of the individual case and considering whether the statutory language was sufficiently clear to give the defendant adequate notice that his conduct was proscribed.” State v. Reckards, 2015 ME 31, ¶ 4 , 113 A.3d 589 (quotation marks omitted). “[N]ot every ambiguity, uncertainty or imprecision of language in a statutory pattern is unconstitutional, and a statute will withstand a vagueness challenge if any reasonable constru | 1 | 5 |
Maine Real Estate Commission v. Kelbygreen2 sentences2006“Although the void-for-vagueness doctrine receives its commonest application in the criminal law context, ‘[T]he doctrine has [also] been applied in instane- es where one must conform his conduct to a civil regulation.’ ” Kelby, 360 A.2d at 531 (quoting Shapiro Bros. 2006"Although the void-for-vagueness doctrine receives its commonest application in the criminal law context, `[T]he doctrine has [also] been applied in instances *287 where one must conform his conduct to a civil regulation.'" Kelby, 360 A.2d at 531 (quoting Shapiro Bros. | 1 | 2 |
Shea v. Louisianagreen1 sentence2024See State v. Witham, 2005 ME 79, ¶ 7 , 876 A.2d 40 (noting that a void-for-vagueness challenge is rooted in the due process clause). 24 prudential doctrines, . . . for example, whether the issue was raised below.”); see also Shea v. Louisiana, 470 U.S. 51 , 58 n.4 (1985) (noting the rule of retroactivity is “subject . . . to established principles of waiver, harmless error, and the like”). [¶41] Nevertheless, we will address the question of Counterman’s effect on the instant case because the application of the new standard announced in Counterman may have the potential to affect the outcome. | 1 | 1 |
Tri-State Rubbish, Inc. v. Town of New Gloucestergreen1 sentence2021Indeed, the Law Court has held that an ordinance survives a void for vagueness challenge if that ordinance "can be construed to be constitutional by importing a reasonable person standard into its language." Town of Baldwin, 2002 ME 52 l) 12, 794 A.2d 62 ; see also Tri-State Rubbish, Inc. v. Town ofNew Gloucester, 634 A.2d 1284, 1287 (Me. 1993)("Reasonable compliance is not an unconstitutionally vague concept. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Husseingreen1 sentence2015United States v. Hussein, 351 F.3d 9, 11 (1st Cir.2003). | 1 | 1 |
Gun Owners' Action League, Inc. v. Swiftgreen1 sentence2006Shoe Co., Inc. v. Lewiston-Auburn Shoeworkers Protective Ass'n, 320 A.2d 247,253 (Me. 1974); see also Gun Owners' Action League, Inc. v. Swift, 284 F.3d 198, 205 (I st Cir. 2002) ("When citizens cannot determine what conduct a law proscribes, the law's vagueness may raise constitutional due process concerns.") "A statute is void for vagueness when it sets guidelines which would force men of general intelligence to guess at its meaning, leaving them without assurance that their behavior complies with legal requirements and forcing courts to be uncertain in their interpretation of the law." Shap | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hillsgreen1 sentence2005Despite Witham’s arguments to the contrary, the depraved indifference murder standard is not irrelevant to the proper construction of section 1031(1 — B); rather, it is informative as to the meaning of “depraved indifference to animal life or suffering.” [¶ 11] In response to a void for vagueness challenge, “the ‘sufficiency of the language of [a] statute is properly tested in the circumstances of the case at bar.’ ” State v. McLaughlin, 2002 ME 55, ¶ 9 , 794 A.2d 69, 73 (quoting State v. Hills, 574 A.2d 1357, 1358 (Me.1990)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. McLaughlingreen2 sentences2005Despite Witham’s arguments to the contrary, the depraved indifference murder standard is not irrelevant to the proper construction of section 1031(1 — B); rather, it is informative as to the meaning of “depraved indifference to animal life or suffering.” [¶ 11] In response to a void for vagueness challenge, “the ‘sufficiency of the language of [a] statute is properly tested in the circumstances of the case at bar.’ ” State v. McLaughlin, 2002 ME 55, ¶ 9 , 794 A.2d 69, 73 (quoting State v. Hills, 574 A.2d 1357, 1358 (Me.1990)). 2005Despite Witham’s arguments to the contrary, the depraved indifference murder standard is not irrelevant to the proper construction of section 1031(1 — B); rather, it is informative as to the meaning of “depraved indifference to animal life or suffering.” [¶ 11] In response to a void for vagueness challenge, “the ‘sufficiency of the language of [a] statute is properly tested in the circumstances of the case at bar.’ ” State v. McLaughlin, 2002 ME 55, ¶ 9 , 794 A.2d 69, 73 (quoting State v. Hills, 574 A.2d 1357, 1358 (Me.1990)). | 1 | 1 |
Harmon v. Emersongreen2 sentences1987Harmon v. Emerson, 425 A.2d 978, 984 (Me.1981). 1987Harmon v. Emerson, 425 A.2d 978, 984 (Me.1981). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Karmil Merchandising Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Aboda
green
2 sentences2015In a void-for-vagueness challenge, we do not analyze the statute to ascertain if it is valid on its face, but instead assess the challenge “by testing it in the circumstances of the individual case and considering whether the statutory language was sufficiently clear to give the defendant adequate notice that his conduct was proscribed.” State v. Aboda, 2010 ME 125, ¶ 15 , 8 A.3d 719 (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 5] The due process clauses of the United States and Maine Constitutions “require that a statute must provide reasonable and intelligible standards to guide the • future conduct of ind 2015In a void-for-vagueness challenge, we do not analyze the statute to ascertain if it is valid on its face, but instead assess the challenge “by testing it in the circumstances of the individual case and considering whether the statutory language was sufficiently clear to give the defendant adequate notice that his conduct was proscribed.” State v. Aboda, 2010 ME 125, ¶ 15 , 8 A.3d 719 (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 5] The due process clauses of the United States and Maine Constitutions “require that a statute must provide reasonable and intelligible standards to guide the • future conduct of ind | 3 | 2015–2018 |
Town of Baldwin v. Carter
green
2 sentences2021Indeed, the Law Court has held that an ordinance survives a void for vagueness challenge if that ordinance "can be construed to be constitutional by importing a reasonable person standard into its language." Town of Baldwin, 2002 ME 52 l) 12, 794 A.2d 62 ; see also Tri-State Rubbish, Inc. v. Town ofNew Gloucester, 634 A.2d 1284, 1287 (Me. 1993)("Reasonable compliance is not an unconstitutionally vague concept. 2021Indeed, the Law Court has held that an ordinance survives a void for vagueness challenge if that ordinance "can be construed to be constitutional by importing a reasonable person standard into its language." Town of Baldwin, 2002 ME 52 l) 12, 794 A.2d 62 ; see also Tri-State Rubbish, Inc. v. Town ofNew Gloucester, 634 A.2d 1284, 1287 (Me. 1993)("Reasonable compliance is not an unconstitutionally vague concept. | 2 | 2021–2023 |
Donald Beauchene v. State of Maine
green
2 sentences2022“In a void-for-vagueness challenge, we do not analyze the statute to ascertain if it is valid on its face, but instead assess the challenge by testing it in the circumstances of the individual case and considering whether the statutory language was sufficiently clear to give the defendant adequate notice that his conduct was proscribed.” State v. Reckards, 2015 ME 31, ¶ 4 , 113 A.3d 589 (quotation marks omitted). “[N]ot every ambiguity, uncertainty or imprecision of language in a statutory pattern is unconstitutional, and a statute will withstand a vagueness challenge if any reasonable constru 2022“In a void-for-vagueness challenge, we do not analyze the statute to ascertain if it is valid on its face, but instead assess the challenge by testing it in the circumstances of the individual case and considering whether the statutory language was sufficiently clear to give the defendant adequate notice that his conduct was proscribed.” State v. Reckards, 2015 ME 31, ¶ 4 , 113 A.3d 589 (quotation marks omitted). “[N]ot every ambiguity, uncertainty or imprecision of language in a statutory pattern is unconstitutional, and a statute will withstand a vagueness challenge if any reasonable constru | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Beauchene v. State
green
2 sentences2022“In a void-for-vagueness challenge, we do not analyze the statute to ascertain if it is valid on its face, but instead assess the challenge by testing it in the circumstances of the individual case and considering whether the statutory language was sufficiently clear to give the defendant adequate notice that his conduct was proscribed.” State v. Reckards, 2015 ME 31, ¶ 4 , 113 A.3d 589 (quotation marks omitted). “[N]ot every ambiguity, uncertainty or imprecision of language in a statutory pattern is unconstitutional, and a statute will withstand a vagueness challenge if any reasonable constru 2022“In a void-for-vagueness challenge, we do not analyze the statute to ascertain if it is valid on its face, but instead assess the challenge by testing it in the circumstances of the individual case and considering whether the statutory language was sufficiently clear to give the defendant adequate notice that his conduct was proscribed.” State v. Reckards, 2015 ME 31, ¶ 4 , 113 A.3d 589 (quotation marks omitted). “[N]ot every ambiguity, uncertainty or imprecision of language in a statutory pattern is unconstitutional, and a statute will withstand a vagueness challenge if any reasonable constru | 2 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Thongsavanh
green
2 sentences2018Rather, “[w]e address a void for vagueness challenge by testing it in the circumstances of the individual case.” State v. Thongsavanh, 2007 ME 20, ¶ 36 , 915 A.2d 421 . 1. 2018Rather, “[w]e address a void for vagueness challenge by testing it in the circumstances of the individual case.” State v. Thongsavanh, 2007 ME 20, ¶ 36 , 915 A.2d 421 . 1. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Falcone
green
2 sentences2018Indeed, a void-for-vagueness challenge will fail “[w]here the meaning of a term can be adequately determined by examining the plain language definition or the common law definition.” Falcone, 2006 ME 90, ¶ 10 , 902 A.2d 141 . 2018Indeed, a void-for-vagueness challenge will fail “[w]here the meaning of a term can be adequately determined by examining the plain language definition or the common law definition.” Falcone, 2006 ME 90, ¶ 10 , 902 A.2d 141 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
In re Weapons Restriction of J.
green
1 sentence2023In re Weapons Restriction of J., 2022 ME 34 , 'I[ 22, 276 A.3d 510 (quoting State v. Reckards, 2015 ME 31 , 'I[ 4, 113 A.3d 589 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Stephen Doane v. Department of Health and Human Services
green
2 sentences2023"A 'void for vagueness' claim is based on the due process protections set forth in the United States and Maine Constitutions and focuses on the need for adequate notice." Doane v. HHS, 2021 ME 28 , 1 17, 250 A.3d 1101 . "[T]hose subject to sanction by law [must] be given fair notice of the standard of conduct to which they can be held accountable." Town ofBaldwin v. Carter, 2002 ME 52 , 1 10, 794 A.2d 62 (quotation marks omitted). 2023"A 'void for vagueness' claim is based on the due process protections set forth in the United States and Maine Constitutions and focuses on the need for adequate notice." Doane v. HHS, 2021 ME 28 , 1 17, 250 A.3d 1101 . "[T]hose subject to sanction by law [must] be given fair notice of the standard of conduct to which they can be held accountable." Town ofBaldwin v. Carter, 2002 ME 52 , 1 10, 794 A.2d 62 (quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. State Tax Assessor
green
2 sentences2022Co. v. State Tax Assessor, 2009 ME 8, ¶ 40 , 963 A.2d 169 . 2022Co. v. State Tax Assessor, 2009 ME 8, ¶ 40 , 963 A.2d 169 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Uliano v. Board of Environmental Protection
green
1 sentence2022Id. ¶ 25 (quoting Kosalka v. Town of Georgetown, 2000 ME 106, ¶ 16 , 752 A.2d 183 ).2 However, “[o]bjective quantification, mathematical Kosalka v. Town of Georgetown addresses an improper delegation of legislative authority and 2 does not address a void-for-vagueness challenge. 2000 ME 106, ¶ 1 , 752 A.2d 183 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Kosalka v. Town of Georgetown
green
2 sentences2022Id. ¶ 25 (quoting Kosalka v. Town of Georgetown, 2000 ME 106, ¶ 16 , 752 A.2d 183 ).2 However, “[o]bjective quantification, mathematical Kosalka v. Town of Georgetown addresses an improper delegation of legislative authority and 2 does not address a void-for-vagueness challenge. 2000 ME 106, ¶ 1 , 752 A.2d 183 . 2022Id. ¶ 25 (quoting Kosalka v. Town of Georgetown, 2000 ME 106, ¶ 16 , 752 A.2d 183 ).2 However, “[o]bjective quantification, mathematical Kosalka v. Town of Georgetown addresses an improper delegation of legislative authority and 2 does not address a void-for-vagueness challenge. 2000 ME 106, ¶ 1 , 752 A.2d 183 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Friends of Maine's Mountains v. Board of Environmental Protection
green
2 sentences2022However, we 11 certainty, and absolute precision are not required by either the United States Constitution or Maine Constitution.” Friends of Me.’s Mountains v. Bd. of Env’t Prot., 2013 ME 25, ¶ 21 , 61 A.3d 689 (quotation marks omitted). [¶16] We have held that a standard that required that a proposed activity “not unreasonably interfere with existing scenic, aesthetic, recreational or navigational uses,” 38 M.R.S. § 480-D(1) (2022), was sufficiently definite to not be void for vagueness or unconstitutionally delegate legislative power. 2022However, we 11 certainty, and absolute precision are not required by either the United States Constitution or Maine Constitution.” Friends of Me.’s Mountains v. Bd. of Env’t Prot., 2013 ME 25, ¶ 21 , 61 A.3d 689 (quotation marks omitted). [¶16] We have held that a standard that required that a proposed activity “not unreasonably interfere with existing scenic, aesthetic, recreational or navigational uses,” 38 M.R.S. § 480-D(1) (2022), was sufficiently definite to not be void for vagueness or unconstitutionally delegate legislative power. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Screws v. United States
green
2 sentences2015Screws v. United States, 825 U.S. 91 , 104-05, 65 S.Ct. 1031 , 89 L.Ed. 1495 (1945). [¶ 9] In 2003, the First Circuit addressed a federal drug statute in a void-for-vagueness challenge involving a substance known as “khat,” which is a leafy green plant that contains a chemical stimulant known as cathinone when it is first cut. 2015Screws v. United States, 825 U.S. 91 , 104-05, 65 S.Ct. 1031 , 89 L.Ed. 1495 (1945). [¶ 9] In 2003, the First Circuit addressed a federal drug statute in a void-for-vagueness challenge involving a substance known as “khat,” which is a leafy green plant that contains a chemical stimulant known as cathinone when it is first cut. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Preston
green
2 sentences2015Additionally, “[a] statute should define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” State v. Preston, 2011 ME 98, ¶ 8 , 26 A.3d 850 (quotation marks omitted). 2015Additionally, “[a] statute should define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” State v. Preston, 2011 ME 98, ¶ 8 , 26 A.3d 850 (quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
United States v. Hassan
green
1 sentence2015In Has-san, the Second Circuit determined that “what saves the statute at issue here — the' CSA as it relates to khat — from constitutional trouble is the fact that scienter is required for a conviction.” 5 Hassan, 578 F.3d at 120 . [¶ 12] We agree with the logic and analysis of the federal circuit courts regarding the scienter requirement in a void-for-vagueness challenge. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State of Maine v. Julia Peck
green
2 sentences2015In a void-for-vagueness challenge, we do not analyze the statute to ascertain if it is valid on its face, but instead assess the challenge “by testing it in the circumstances of the individual case and considering whether the statutory language was sufficiently clear to give the defendant adequate notice that his conduct was proscribed.” State v. Aboda, 2010 ME 125, ¶ 15 , 8 A.3d 719 (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 5] The due process clauses of the United States and Maine Constitutions “require that a statute must provide reasonable and intelligible standards to guide the • future conduct of ind 2015In a void-for-vagueness challenge, we do not analyze the statute to ascertain if it is valid on its face, but instead assess the challenge “by testing it in the circumstances of the individual case and considering whether the statutory language was sufficiently clear to give the defendant adequate notice that his conduct was proscribed.” State v. Aboda, 2010 ME 125, ¶ 15 , 8 A.3d 719 (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 5] The due process clauses of the United States and Maine Constitutions “require that a statute must provide reasonable and intelligible standards to guide the • future conduct of ind | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Weeks
green
1 sentence2006"The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, section 6-A of the .Maine Constitution require that criminal defendants be given 'fair notice of the standard of conduct to which they can be held accountable."' State v. Witham, 2005 ME 79 , ,f7, 876 A.2d 40, 42 (quoting State v. Weeks, 2000 ME 171 , ,f7, 76 I A.2d 44, 46) 42 (brackets omitted). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
In Re Spring Valley Development
green
1 sentence2000In re Spring Valley Development, 300 A.2d 736 (Me. 1973). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Swed v. Inhabitants of Town of Bar Harbor
green
2 sentences1976(Footnote omitted.) See also Swed v. Inhabitants of Bar Harbor, 158 Me. 220 , 182 A.2d 664 (1962); State v. The Fantastic Fair and Karmil Merchandising Corp., 158 Me. 450, 467-71 , 186 A.2d 352, 363-65 (1961). 1976(Footnote omitted.) See also Swed v. Inhabitants of Bar Harbor, 158 Me. 220 , 182 A.2d 664 (1962); State v. The Fantastic Fair and Karmil Merchandising Corp., 158 Me. 450, 467-71 , 186 A.2d 352, 363-65 (1961). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| State v. Fantastic Fair & Karmil Merchandising Corp. green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Boutilier v. Immigration & Naturalization Service green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.