over-breadth doctrine in Texas

15 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1992–2017 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Texas 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.

Followed or applied (10)

Case	Followed	Cited
Duncantell v. Stategreen texapp · 2007 · cited in 4 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2015 2 sentences 2015“When an appellant challenges a statute as both unconstitutionally over-broad and vague, we address the over-breadth challenge first.” See Duncantell, 230 S.W.3d at 843 . 2013See Roberts v. State, 278 S.W.3d 778, 790 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2008, pet. ref'd); (citing Duncantell v. State, 230 S.W.3d 835, 843 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. ref'd)).	2	4
Ex Parte Ellisgreen texcrimapp · 2010 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014Courts have admonished that the over-breadth doctrine is “strong medicine” that should be employed “sparingly” and “only as a last resort.” See Ex parte Ellis, 309 S.W.3d 71, 91 (Tex.Crim.App.2010).	1	1
RETAMCO OPERATING, INC. v. DOUGLAS B. McCALLUM, LLCgreen tex · 2009 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 1 sentence 2013See Roberts v. State, 278 S.W.3d 778, 790 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2008, pet. ref'd); (citing Duncantell v. State, 230 S.W.3d 835, 843 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. ref'd)).	1	1
Byrum v. Stategreen texapp · 1988 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 1 sentence 2008Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 494 , 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1191 , 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982); Duncantell v. State, 230 S.W.3d 835, 843 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. ref'd); Byrum v. State, 762 S.W.2d 685, 687 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, no pet.).	1	1
Clements v. Stategreen texapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 1 sentence 2006For purposes of an over-breadth challenge, “while conduct does not lose First Amendment protection merely because the actor intends to annoy the recipient, such conduct is much less likely to enjoy protection where the actor intends to ‘frighten’ the recipient, and such conduct is unlikely to enjoy any protection where the actor intends to place the recipient in fear of death or bodily injury.” Long, 931 S.W.2d at 293 (emphasis added); see Clements, 19 S.W.3d at 451 . 1.	1	1
Long v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1996 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 1 sentence 2006For purposes of an over-breadth challenge, “while conduct does not lose First Amendment protection merely because the actor intends to annoy the recipient, such conduct is much less likely to enjoy protection where the actor intends to ‘frighten’ the recipient, and such conduct is unlikely to enjoy any protection where the actor intends to place the recipient in fear of death or bodily injury.” Long, 931 S.W.2d at 293 (emphasis added); see Clements, 19 S.W.3d at 451 . 1.	1	1
State v. Markovichgreen texcrimapp · 2002 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004See State v. Markovich, 34 S.W.3d 21 , 25 n. 2 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000), aff'd, 77 S.W.3d 274 (Tex.Crim.App.2002).	1	1
State v. Markovichgreen texapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004See State v. Markovich, 34 S.W.3d 21 , 25 n. 2 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000), aff'd, 77 S.W.3d 274 (Tex.Crim.App.2002).	1	1
Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc.green scotus · 1985 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998 2 sentences 1998“The over-breadth doctrine has often been understood as an exception to the rule that individuals generally may not litigate the rights of third parties.” Lawrence Tribe, American Constitutional Law § 12-27 at 1023 (1988); see also Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 503 , 105 S.Ct. 2794 , 86 L.Ed.2d 394 (1985); NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 432-33 , 83 S.Ct. 328 , 9 L.Ed.2d 405 (1963). 1998“The over-breadth doctrine has often been understood as an exception to the rule that individuals generally may not litigate the rights of third parties.” Lawrence Tribe, American Constitutional Law § 12-27 at 1023 (1988); see also Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 503 , 105 S.Ct. 2794 , 86 L.Ed.2d 394 (1985); NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 432-33 , 83 S.Ct. 328 , 9 L.Ed.2d 405 (1963).	1	1
Bates v. State Bar of Arizonagreen scotus · 1977 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992 2 sentences 1992Bates, 433 U.S. at 381, 97 S.Ct. at 2708 . 1992Bates, 433 U.S. at 381, 97 S.Ct. at 2708 .	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (11)

Case	Cited	Years
Broadrick v. Oklahoma green scotus · 1973 2 sentences 2015Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has explained, Because of the wide-reaching effects of striking down a statute on its face at the request of one whose own conduct maybe punished despite the First Amendment, we have recognized that the over-breadth doctrine is “strong medicine” and have employed it with hesitation, and then “only as a last resort.” New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 769 , 102 S.Ct. 3348 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982) (citing Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 613 , 93 S.Ct. 2908 ). 2015Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has explained, Because of the wide-reaching effects of striking down a statute on its face at the request of one whose own conduct maybe punished despite the First Amendment, we have recognized that the over-breadth doctrine is “strong medicine” and have employed it with hesitation, and then “only as a last resort.” New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 769 , 102 S.Ct. 3348 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982) (citing Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 613 , 93 S.Ct. 2908 ).	4	2006–2015
New York v. Ferber green scotus · 1982 2 sentences 2015Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has explained, Because of the wide-reaching effects of striking down a statute on its face at the request of one whose own conduct maybe punished despite the First Amendment, we have recognized that the over-breadth doctrine is “strong medicine” and have employed it with hesitation, and then “only as a last resort.” New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 769 , 102 S.Ct. 3348 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982) (citing Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 613 , 93 S.Ct. 2908 ). 2015Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has explained, Because of the wide-reaching effects of striking down a statute on its face at the request of one whose own conduct maybe punished despite the First Amendment, we have recognized that the over-breadth doctrine is “strong medicine” and have employed it with hesitation, and then “only as a last resort.” New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 769 , 102 S.Ct. 3348 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982) (citing Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 613 , 93 S.Ct. 2908 ).	3	2006–2015
Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. green scotus · 1982 2 sentences 2015Vill. of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 494 , 102 S.Ct. 1186 , 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982). 2015Vill. of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 494 , 102 S.Ct. 1186 , 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982).	2	2008–2015
Webb v. State green texapp · 1999 2 sentences 2017In Webb v. State, 991 S.W.2d 408 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist. 1999], pet. ref d), our sister Court of Appeals addressed an over-breadth challenge to section .36.06. 2017Id. at 412 . 1 The Webb court held that section 36.06 does not abridge constitutionally protected speech -and that the statute “survives the fácial ' challenges to over-breadth[.]” Id. at 414-15 .	1	2017–2017
Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown Railroad green scotus · 1952 1 sentence 2015City of Houston, Tex. v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 458-59 , 107 S.Ct. 2502 , 96 L.Ed.2d 398 (1987).	1	2015–2015
City of Houston v. Hill green scotus · 1987 2 sentences 2015City of Houston, Tex. v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 458-59 , 107 S.Ct. 2502 , 96 L.Ed.2d 398 (1987). 2015City of Houston, Tex. v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 458-59 , 107 S.Ct. 2502 , 96 L.Ed.2d 398 (1987).	1	2015–2015
New York State Club Assn., Inc. v. City of New York green scotus · 1988 2 sentences 2014A challenger may prevail in a facial challenge to an overly broad statute by demonstrating that, although the law may be validly applied to the challenger and others, “it nevertheless is so broad that it may inhibit the constitutionally protected speech of third parties.” New York State Club Ass’n, Inc., 487 U.S. at 11 , 108 S.Ct. at 2233 . 2014A challenger may prevail in a facial challenge to an overly broad statute by demonstrating that, although the law may be validly applied to the challenger and others, “it nevertheless is so broad that it may inhibit the constitutionally protected speech of third parties.” New York State Club Ass’n, Inc., 487 U.S. at 11 , 108 S.Ct. at 2233 .	1	2014–2014
United States v. Williams green scotus · 2008 2 sentences 2011The first step in considering an over-breadth challenge “is to construe the challenged statute; it is impossible to determine whether a statute reaches too far without first knowing what the statute covers.” Williams, 553 U.S. at 293 , 128 S.Ct. at 1838 . 2011The first step in considering an over-breadth challenge “is to construe the challenged statute; it is impossible to determine whether a statute reaches too far without first knowing what the statute covers.” Williams, 553 U.S. at 293 , 128 S.Ct. at 1838 .	1	2011–2011
People v. Reynolds green illappct · 1999 1 sentence 2008People v. Reynolds, 302 Ill.App.3d 722 , 235 Ill.	1	2008–2008
People v. Reynolds green illappct · 1999 1 sentence 2008People v. Reynolds, 302 Ill.App.3d 722 , 235 Ill.	1	2008–2008
National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Button green scotus · 1963 2 sentences 1998“The over-breadth doctrine has often been understood as an exception to the rule that individuals generally may not litigate the rights of third parties.” Lawrence Tribe, American Constitutional Law § 12-27 at 1023 (1988); see also Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 503 , 105 S.Ct. 2794 , 86 L.Ed.2d 394 (1985); NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 432-33 , 83 S.Ct. 328 , 9 L.Ed.2d 405 (1963). 1998“The over-breadth doctrine has often been understood as an exception to the rule that individuals generally may not litigate the rights of third parties.” Lawrence Tribe, American Constitutional Law § 12-27 at 1023 (1988); see also Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 503 , 105 S.Ct. 2794 , 86 L.Ed.2d 394 (1985); NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 432-33 , 83 S.Ct. 328 , 9 L.Ed.2d 405 (1963).	1	1998–1998

Statutes the citing opinions construe

TX § Tex. Penal Code § 33.021 (4)

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.

Where else courts name it

TX 15 (1992–2017) WI 8 (1982–2012) WA 7 (1971–2016) OR 7 (2000–2025) MO 7 (1993–2017) CO 7 (1981–2016) MN 6 (1990–2008) PA 5 (1984–2007) OH 4 (1984–2009) AZ 3 (1984–1997) DC 3 (1981–2011) CT 3 (1998–2011) FL 3 (1996–2015) SD 3 (1977–2011) IN 3 (1988–2017) MI 3 (1976–2000) ID 3 (1985–2012) NE 2 (2001–2002) KY 2 (1990–2003) HI 2 (2007–2014) CA 2 (1998–2008) DE 2 (1991–1998) IL 2 (1987–2003) NJ 2 (1984–1997) WY 2 (2004–2007) VA 2 (2002–2006)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check