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.
15 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2020“Accordingly, the statutory language must ‘convey sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding.’” Id. (quoting Rhinehardt v. State, 477 N.E.2d 89, 93 (Ind. 1985)). [17] The examination of a vagueness challenge is performed in light of the facts and circumstances of each individual case. 2014The examination of a vagueness challenge is performed in light of the facts and circumstances of each individual case. 1 Id. *638 Armstrong’s vagueness claim focuses on the phrase “in affiliation with.” To determine whether the vagueness doctrine applies, we consider this phrase in context. | 6 | 12 |
Rhinehardt v. Stategreen1 sentence2020“Accordingly, the statutory language must ‘convey sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding.’” Id. (quoting Rhinehardt v. State, 477 N.E.2d 89, 93 (Ind. 1985)). [17] The examination of a vagueness challenge is performed in light of the facts and circumstances of each individual case. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Baysingergreen2 sentences2008Indiana Code section 35-45-4-1.5(c) provides, in pertinent part: “a person who knowingly or intentionally ap *32 pears in a public place in a state of nudity with the intent to be seen by another person commits a Class B misdemeanor.” Weideman’s vagueness claim focuses on the phrase “public place.” Although Weideman contends that the phrase “public place” is ambiguous, he cites to our supreme court’s definition of that phrase in State v. Baysinger, 272 Ind. 236 , 397 N.E.2d 580, 583 (1979). 2008Indiana Code section 35-45-4-1.5(c) provides, in pertinent part: “a person who knowingly or intentionally ap *32 pears in a public place in a state of nudity with the intent to be seen by another person commits a Class B misdemeanor.” Weideman’s vagueness claim focuses on the phrase “public place.” Although Weideman contends that the phrase “public place” is ambiguous, he cites to our supreme court’s definition of that phrase in State v. Baysinger, 272 Ind. 236 , 397 N.E.2d 580, 583 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lombardo
green
2 sentences2015Id. [10] 868 N.E.2d 464, 467 (Ind. 2007). 2015Id. [6] 868 N.E.2d 464, 467 (Ind.2007). | 5 | 2007–2015 |
United States v. Harriss
green
1 sentence2017“The examination of a vagueness challenge is performed in light of the facts and circumstances of each individual case.” Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Klein v. State
green
1 sentence2015Again, “[a] statute is not void for vagueness if individuals of ordinary intelligence could comprehend it to the extent that it would fairly inform them of the generally proscribed conduct,” Klein, 698 N.E.2d at 299 , and the examination of a vagueness challenge is performed in light of the facts and circumstances of each individual case. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.