Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
19 Nevada opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Nevada 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. Castanedagreen2 sentences2024A statute is unconstitutionally vague "(1) if it 'fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited'; or (2) if it 'is so standardless that it authorizes or encourages seriously discriminatory enforcement." Id. at 1021, 363 P.3d at 1164 (quoting State v. Castaneda, 126 Nev. 478 , 481- 82, 245 P.3d 550, 553 (2010)). 2024A statute is unconstitutionally vague "(1) if it 'fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited'; or (2) if it 'is so standardless that it authorizes or encourages seriously discriminatory enforcement." Id. at 1021, 363 P.3d at 1164 (quoting State v. Castaneda, 126 Nev. 478 , 481- 82, 245 P.3d 550, 553 (2010)). | 9 | 9 |
Carrigan v. Commission on Ethicsgreen2 sentences2017"The void-for-vagueness doctrine is rooted in the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments." Carrigan v. Comm'n on Ethics, 129 Nev. 894, 899, 313 P.3d 880, 884 (2013); see also Edwards v. City of Reno, 103 Nev. 347, 350, 742 P.2d 486, 488 (1987) (holding that vague laws violate the Due Process Clauses found in both the United States Constitution and the Nevada Constitution). 2017"The void-for-vagueness doctrine is rooted in the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments." Carrigan v. Comm'n on Ethics, 129 Nev. 894, 899, 313 P.3d 880, 884 (2013); see also Edwards v. City of Reno, 103 Nev. 347, 350, 742 P.2d 486, 488 (1987) (holding that vague laws violate the Due Process Clauses found in both the United States Constitution and the Nevada Constitution). | 4 | 4 |
Silvar v. Dist. Ct.green2 sentences2024“The void-for-vagueness doctrine is predicated upon a statute's repugnancy to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Scott, 131 Nev. at 1021, 363 P.3d at 1163-64 (quoting Silvar, 122 Nev. at 293 , 129 P.3d at 684-85 ). 2024"The void-for-vagueness doctrine is predicated upon a statute's repugnancy to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." Scott, 131 Nev. at 1021, 363 P.3d at 1163-64 (quoting Silvar, 122 Nev. at 293 , 129 P.3d at 684-85 ). | 3 | 8 |
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Projectgreen2 sentences2015A criminal statute can be invalidated for vagueness "(1) if it 'fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited'; or (2) if it 'is so standardless that it authorizes or encourages seriously discriminatory enforcement." State v. Castaneda, 126 Nev. 478, 481-82 , 245 P.3d 550, 553 (2010) (quoting Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 , 18 (2010)). 2015A criminal statute can be invalidated for vagueness "(1) if it 'fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited'; or (2) if it 'is so standardless that it authorizes or encourages seriously discriminatory enforcement." State v. Castaneda, 126 Nev. 478, 481-82 , 245 P.3d 550, 553 (2010) (quoting Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 18 (2010)). | 3 | 3 |
United States v. Petrillogreen2 sentences2020Court, 122 Nev. 289, 293 , 129 P.3d 682, 684-85 (2006) (explaining the void- for-vagueness doctrine); see also Nelson v. State, 123 Nev. 534, 540-41 , 170 P.3d 517, 522 (2007) (providing that "cases in which it is difficult to determine the side of the line on which a particular fact situation falls" are SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) I947A 4141114. insufficient to find a statute unconstitutional (quoting United States v. Petrillo, 332 U.S. 1, 7 (1947))). 2020Court, 122 Nev. 289, 293 , 129 P.3d 682, 684-85 (2006) (explaining the void-for- vagueness doctrine); see also Nelson v. State, 123 Nev. 534, 540-41 , 170 P.3d 517, 522 (2007) (providing that "cases in which it is difficult to determine SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) I )47A (44111#. the side of the line on which a particular fact situation falls" are insufficient to find a statute unconstitutional (quoting United States v. Petrillo, 332 U.S. 1, 7 (1947))). | 2 | 2 |
Nelson v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Court, 122 Nev. 289, 293 , 129 P.3d 682, 684-85 (2006) (explaining the void- for-vagueness doctrine); see also Nelson v. State, 123 Nev. 534, 540-41 , 170 P.3d 517, 522 (2007) (providing that "cases in which it is difficult to determine the side of the line on which a particular fact situation falls" are SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) I947A 4141114. insufficient to find a statute unconstitutional (quoting United States v. Petrillo, 332 U.S. 1, 7 (1947))). 2020Court, 122 Nev. 289, 293 , 129 P.3d 682, 684-85 (2006) (explaining the void- for-vagueness doctrine); see also Nelson v. State, 123 Nev. 534, 540-41 , 170 P.3d 517, 522 (2007) (providing that "cases in which it is difficult to determine the side of the line on which a particular fact situation falls" are SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) I947A 4141114. insufficient to find a statute unconstitutional (quoting United States v. Petrillo, 332 U.S. 1, 7 (1947))). | 2 | 2 |
Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.green2 sentences2017"Civil laws are held to a less strict vagueness standard than criminal laws 'because the consequences of imprecision are qualitatively less severe.'" Id. (quoting Vill. of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 499 (1982)). 2017"Civil laws are held to a less strict vagueness standard than criminal laws 'because the consequences of imprecision are qualitatively less severe.'" Id. (quoting Vill. of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 499 (1982)). | 2 | 2 |
Edwards v. City of Renogreen2 sentences2017"The void-for-vagueness doctrine is rooted in the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments." Carrigan v. Comm'n on Ethics, 129 Nev. 894, 899, 313 P.3d 880, 884 (2013); see also Edwards v. City of Reno, 103 Nev. 347, 350, 742 P.2d 486, 488 (1987) (holding that vague laws violate the Due Process Clauses found in both the United States Constitution and the Nevada Constitution). 2017"The void-for-vagueness doctrine is rooted in the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments." Carrigan v. Comm'n on Ethics, 129 Nev. 894, 899, 313 P.3d 880, 884 (2013); see also Edwards v. City of Reno, 103 Nev. 347, 350, 742 P.2d 486, 488 (1987) (holding that vague laws violate the Due Process Clauses found in both the United States Constitution and the Nevada Constitution). | 2 | 2 |
Silvar v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of Clarkgreen2 sentences2024“The void-for-vagueness doctrine is predicated upon a statute's repugnancy to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Scott, 131 Nev. at 1021, 363 P.3d at 1163-64 (quoting Silvar, 122 Nev. at 293 , 129 P.3d at 684-85 ). 2024"The void-for-vagueness doctrine is predicated upon a statute's repugnancy to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." Scott, 131 Nev. at 1021, 363 P.3d at 1163-64 (quoting Silvar, 122 Nev. at 293 , 129 P.3d at 684-85 ). | 1 | 8 |
State v. Webstergreen2 sentences2014Moreover, the statute is not penal, see State v. Webster, 102 Nev. 450, 454 , 726 P.2d 831, 833-34 (1986), and therefore does not implicate the void-for-vagueness doctrine, see Glauner v. Miller, 184 F.3d 1053, 1055 (9th Cir. 1999). 2014Moreover, the statute is not penal, see State v. Webster, 102 Nev. 450, 454 , 726 P.2d 831, 833-34 (1986), and therefore does not implicate the void-for-vagueness doctrine, see Glauner v. Miller, 184 F.3d 1053, 1055 (9th Cir. 1999). | 1 | 1 |
Glauner v. Governor Robert J. Millergreen1 sentence2014Moreover, the statute is not penal, see State v. Webster, 102 Nev. 450, 454 , 726 P.2d 831, 833-34 (1986), and therefore does not implicate the void-for-vagueness doctrine, see Glauner v. Miller, 184 F.3d 1053, 1055 (9th Cir. 1999). | 1 | 1 |
Broadrick v. Oklahomagreen2 sentences2010Compare Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 20 (2010) (“a plaintiff whose speech is clearly proscribed cannot raise a successful vagueness claim ... for lack of notice”), with Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 608 n.7 (rejecting the government employees’ vagueness challenge to lack of notice given that there was a review board available, as here, to rule in advance on the permissibility of their proposed conduct). 2010Compare Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. ___ , ___, 130 S.Ct. 2705, 2719 , ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2010) ("a plaintiff whose speech is clearly proscribed cannot raise a successful vagueness claim ... for lack of notice"), with Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 608 , 93 S.Ct. 2908 n. 7 (rejecting the government employees' vagueness challenge to lack of notice given that there was a review board available, as here, to rule in advance on the permissibility of their proposed conduct). | 1 | 1 |
Gentile v. State Bar of Nev.green1 sentence1992See, e.g., Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, _ U.S. _, 111 S.Ct. 2720 (1991); Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Goguen
green
1 sentence1992See, e.g., Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, _ U.S. _, 111 S.Ct. 2720 (1991); Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566 (1974). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.