15 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2026 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arkansas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Martin v. Stategreen2 sentences2026As we held, the “under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life” language provides sufficient notice to both the accused and the jury about the conduct proscribed. 3 Martin v. State, 261 Ark. 80, 84 , 547 S.W.2d 81, 83 (1977). 2026As we held, the “under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life” language provides sufficient notice to both the accused and the jury about the conduct proscribed. 3 Martin v. State, 261 Ark. 80, 84 , 547 S.W.2d 81, 83 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
Cambiano v. Nealgreen1 sentence2017Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357-58 , 103 S.Ct. 1855 , 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983); see also Cambiano v. Neal, 342 Ark. 691, 704 , 35 S.W.3d 792 , 799-800 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
Cambiano v. Nealgreen1 sentence2017Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357-58 , 103 S.Ct. 1855 , 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983); see also Cambiano v. Neal, 342 Ark. 691, 704 , 35 S.W.3d 792 , 799-800 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
Jegley v. Picadogreen2 sentences2016The overbreadth doctrine was developed in the context of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and is often applied in conjunction with the void-for- vagueness doctrine, which is rooted in the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. 1 Black’s Law Dictionary defines the Overbreadth Doctrine as “the doctrine holding that if a statute is so broadly written that it deters free expression, then it can be struck down 1 While previous cases have held that the overbreadth doctrine is inapplicable outside the context of the First Amendment, Jegley v. Picado, 3 2016The overbreadth doctrine was developed in the context of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and is often applied in conjunction with the void-for- vagueness doctrine, which is rooted in the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. 1 Black’s Law Dictionary defines the Overbreadth Doctrine as “the doctrine holding that if a statute is so broadly written that it deters free expression, then it can be struck down 1 While previous cases have held that the overbreadth doctrine is inapplicable outside the context of the First Amendment, Jegley v. Picado, 3 | 1 | 1 |
Crail v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See Crail v. State, 309 Ark. 120 , 827 S.W.2d 157 (1992) (rejecting the defendant’s void-for-vagueness claim where he asserted that he knew that the penalty for possession of a small quantity of marijuana was minor (a misdemeanor) but did not know the penalty for possession of the pipe used to smoke the marijuana under § 5-64-403 was more serious (a felony)); Moore v. State, 297 Ark. 296 , 761 S.W.2d 894 (1988) (holding that the statute defining “drug paraphernalia” and § 5-64-403(c)(l) were not unconstitutionally vague for want of certainty and definiteness because they give a person of ordin 2006See Crail v. State, 309 Ark. 120 , 827 S.W.2d 157 (1992) (rejecting the defendant’s void-for-vagueness claim where he asserted that he knew that the penalty for possession of a small quantity of marijuana was minor (a misdemeanor) but did not know the penalty for possession of the pipe used to smoke the marijuana under § 5-64-403 was more serious (a felony)); Moore v. State, 297 Ark. 296 , 761 S.W.2d 894 (1988) (holding that the statute defining “drug paraphernalia” and § 5-64-403(c)(l) were not unconstitutionally vague for want of certainty and definiteness because they give a person of ordin | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Anderson v. State
green
2 sentences2026“The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute 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.” Anderson v. State, 2017 Ark. 357, at 4 , 533 S.W.3d 64, 67 . 2026“The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute 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.” Anderson v. State, 2017 Ark. 357, at 4 , 533 S.W.3d 64, 67 . | 3 | 2021–2026 |
Kolender v. Lawson
green
2 sentences1987In Kolender , which did not involve obscenity, the Court explained that "the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute 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." Kolender, 461 U.S. at 357 , 103 S.Ct. at 1858 . 1987In Kolender , which did not involve obscenity, the Court explained that "the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute 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." Kolender, 461 U.S. at 357 , 103 S.Ct. at 1858 . | 2 | 1987–2017 |
Anderson v. City of Issaquah
green
2 sentences2008Id. 2001Id. | 2 | 2001–2008 |
Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.
green
1 sentence2025F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239 (2012). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Maxwell Todd Howton v. State of Arkansas
green
1 sentence2023Howton, supra. When challenging the constitutionality of a statute on grounds of vagueness, the individual challenging the statute must be one of the “entrapped innocent” who has not received fair warning that certain conduct has been prohibited. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Madison Park North Apartments, L.P. v. Commissioner of Housing & Community Development
neutral
2 sentences2018Madison Park N. Apartments, L.P. v. Comm'r of Housing and Cmty. Dev. , 211 Md.App. 676 , 66 A.3d 93 (2013). 2018Madison Park N. Apartments, L.P. v. Comm'r of Housing and Cmty. Dev. , 211 Md.App. 676 , 66 A.3d 93 (2013). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
United States v. Salerno
green
1 sentence2016The overbreadth doctrine was developed in the context of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and is often applied in conjunction with the void-for- vagueness doctrine, which is rooted in the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. 1 Black’s Law Dictionary defines the Overbreadth Doctrine as “the doctrine holding that if a statute is so broadly written that it deters free expression, then it can be struck down 1 While previous cases have held that the overbreadth doctrine is inapplicable outside the context of the First Amendment, Jegley v. Picado, 3 | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Smith v. Arkansas Midstream Gas Services Corp.
green
2 sentences2010This court has recently rejected a landowner’s void-for-vagueness challenge to section 23-15-101 in Smith, 2010 Ark. 256 , 377 S.W.3d 199 . 2010This court has recently rejected a landowner’s void-for-vagueness challenge to section 23-15-101 in Smith, 2010 Ark. 256 , 377 S.W.3d 199 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Moore v. State
green
2 sentences2006See Crail v. State, 309 Ark. 120 , 827 S.W.2d 157 (1992) (rejecting the defendant’s void-for-vagueness claim where he asserted that he knew that the penalty for possession of a small quantity of marijuana was minor (a misdemeanor) but did not know the penalty for possession of the pipe used to smoke the marijuana under § 5-64-403 was more serious (a felony)); Moore v. State, 297 Ark. 296 , 761 S.W.2d 894 (1988) (holding that the statute defining “drug paraphernalia” and § 5-64-403(c)(l) were not unconstitutionally vague for want of certainty and definiteness because they give a person of ordin 2006See Crail v. State, 309 Ark. 120 , 827 S.W.2d 157 (1992) (rejecting the defendant’s void-for-vagueness claim where he asserted that he knew that the penalty for possession of a small quantity of marijuana was minor (a misdemeanor) but did not know the penalty for possession of the pipe used to smoke the marijuana under § 5-64-403 was more serious (a felony)); Moore v. State, 297 Ark. 296 , 761 S.W.2d 894 (1988) (holding that the statute defining “drug paraphernalia” and § 5-64-403(c)(l) were not unconstitutionally vague for want of certainty and definiteness because they give a person of ordin | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Cromwell v. State
green
2 sentences1984We explained in Cromwell v. State, 269 Ark. 104 , 598 S. W.2d 733 (1980), why the overlap was not unconstitutional under the void for vagueness doctrine. 1984We explained in Cromwell v. State, 269 Ark. 104 , 598 S. W.2d 733 (1980), why the overlap was not unconstitutional under the void for vagueness doctrine. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Smith v. Goguen
green
1 sentence1980The appellant, in arguing the void-for-vagueness doctrine, relies upon the rule that the legislature must set-reasonably clear guidelines for law enforcement officials and triers of fact, to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory law enforcement, Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566 (1974), and upon the companion principle that a vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Grayned v. City of Rockford
green
1 sentence1980Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.