14 Oklahoma opinions name it 3 courts 1974–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oklahoma 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 |
|---|---|---|
Conchito v. City of Tulsagreen2 sentences2000See Conchito v. City of Tulsa, 521 P.2d 1384 , 1386 (Okla.Crim. 1974) (holding a Tulsa city obscenity ordinance unconstitutional as overly broad and not susceptible to a narrowing construction that would preserve its validity). 1998See Conchito v. City of Tulsa, 1974 OK CR 82, ¶ 6 , 521 P.2d 1384, 1386 . | 2 | 3 |
Moore v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See Moore v. State , 1990 OK CR 5, ¶ 33 , 788 P.2d 387 , 395--96 (holding Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article II, § 30, of the Oklahoma Constitution both require search warrants describe with specificity and particularity the place to be searched and the items to be seized). 2019See Moore v. State , 1990 OK CR 5, ¶ 33 , 788 P.2d 387 , 395--96 (holding Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article II, § 30, of the Oklahoma Constitution both require search warrants describe with specificity and particularity the place to be searched and the items to be seized). | 2 | 2 |
Broadrick v. Oklahomagreen2 sentences2004When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.” N.A.A.C.P. v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 928 , 102 S.Ct. 3409 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1215 (1982)(emphasis added). ¶ 60, In that the Oklahoma statute is primarily directed at the conduct of cockfighting and the willful instigation or encouragement of same, and “not merely speech is involved,” the overbreadth test of Broadrick v. Oklar homa must be applied to determine whether the alleged overbreadth of this statute “is not only ... real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statute’s plain 2004As a starting point, because the statute is directed at conduct, i.e., “act or performs any service”, and arguably may touch on speech incidental to such action and/or performance of service in the furtherance of or to facilitate any cockfight, the overbreadth test of Broadrick v. Oklahoma must be applied to determine whether the alleged overbreadth of this statute “is not only ... real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” 413 U.S. at 615, 93 S.Ct. 2908 . | 1 | 6 |
Van Horn v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Van Horn v. State , 1972 OK CR 97, ¶ 8 , 496 P.2d 121, 123 ; Daniels , 1967 OK CR 165, ¶ 4 , 441 P.2d at 495 . ¶16 To succeed on an overbreadth challenge, the defendant must establish that the search warrant failed to describe with specificity and particularity the place to be searched and the items to be seized. 2019Van Horn v. State , 1972 OK CR 97, ¶ 8 , 496 P.2d 121, 123 ; Daniels , 1967 OK CR 165, ¶ 4 , 441 P.2d at 495 . ¶16 To succeed on an overbreadth challenge, the defendant must establish that the search warrant failed to describe with specificity and particularity the place to be searched and the items to be seized. | 1 | 2 |
Daniels v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Van Horn v. State , 1972 OK CR 97, ¶ 8 , 496 P.2d 121, 123 ; Daniels , 1967 OK CR 165, ¶ 4 , 441 P.2d at 495 . ¶16 To succeed on an overbreadth challenge, the defendant must establish that the search warrant failed to describe with specificity and particularity the place to be searched and the items to be seized. 2019Van Horn v. State , 1972 OK CR 97, ¶ 8 , 496 P.2d 121, 123 ; Daniels , 1967 OK CR 165, ¶ 4 , 441 P.2d at 495 . ¶16 To succeed on an overbreadth challenge, the defendant must establish that the search warrant failed to describe with specificity and particularity the place to be searched and the items to be seized. | 1 | 2 |
Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.green2 sentences2025If it does not, then the overbreadth challenge must fail." Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates , Inc. , 455 U.S. 489, 494 (1982) (footnotes omitted). 2025If it does not, then the overbreadth challenge must fail." Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates , Inc. , 455 U.S. 489, 494 (1982) (footnotes omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Walker v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Furthermore, regarding criminal statutory construction, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has held “[w]here an act is readily subject to a narrowing construction which would avoid violation of the overbreadth doctrine, then that narrow construction should be applied and the act should be upheld against a facial challenge.” Gilbert v. State, 1988 OK CR 268 , 765 P.2d 1208, 1210 (1988); see also Walker v. State, 1982 OK CR 5 , 639 P.2d 1255 (construing Indecent Telephone Conversation criminal statute as containing an implied limitation that the prohibited language be spoken to an unwilling 2004Furthermore, regarding criminal statutory construction, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has held “[w]here an act is readily subject to a narrowing construction which would avoid violation of the overbreadth doctrine, then that narrow construction should be applied and the act should be upheld against a facial challenge.” Gilbert v. State, 1988 OK CR 268 , 765 P.2d 1208, 1210 (1988); see also Walker v. State, 1982 OK CR 5 , 639 P.2d 1255 (construing Indecent Telephone Conversation criminal statute as containing an implied limitation that the prohibited language be spoken to an unwilling | 1 | 1 |
Ledbetter v. Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enforcement Commissiongreen1 sentence2004Further, as previously noted, the U.S. Supreme Court has additionally provided “the mere fact that one can conceive of some impermissible applications of a statute is not sufficient to render it susceptible to an overbreadth challenge.” Members of the City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. at 800 , 104 S.Ct. 2118 . ¶ 69 This Court has provided “[i]n the interpretation of statutes, courts do not limit their consideration to a single word or phrase in isolation to attempt to determine their meaning, but construe together the various provisions of relevant legislative enaet-ments to asce | 1 | 1 |
Gilbert v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Furthermore, regarding criminal statutory construction, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has held “[w]here an act is readily subject to a narrowing construction which would avoid violation of the overbreadth doctrine, then that narrow construction should be applied and the act should be upheld against a facial challenge.” Gilbert v. State, 1988 OK CR 268 , 765 P.2d 1208, 1210 (1988); see also Walker v. State, 1982 OK CR 5 , 639 P.2d 1255 (construing Indecent Telephone Conversation criminal statute as containing an implied limitation that the prohibited language be spoken to an unwilling 2004Furthermore, regarding criminal statutory construction, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has held “[w]here an act is readily subject to a narrowing construction which would avoid violation of the overbreadth doctrine, then that narrow construction should be applied and the act should be upheld against a facial challenge.” Gilbert v. State, 1988 OK CR 268 , 765 P.2d 1208, 1210 (1988); see also Walker v. State, 1982 OK CR 5 , 639 P.2d 1255 (construing Indecent Telephone Conversation criminal statute as containing an implied limitation that the prohibited language be spoken to an unwilling | 1 | 1 |
Peck v. Dunngreen1 sentence2004See Peck v. Dunn, 574 P.2d at 369 (determining that despite the absence of express terms requiring a culpable mental state, a sensible and practical application of the cockfighting ordinance would require purposeful and intentional presence as a spectator as opposed to a mere passerby to fall within ordinance’s terms). 43 Respondents’ overbreadth challenge to § 1692.4 must fail. *637 P. Respondents allege the terms “spectator” and “preparations” as used in § 1692.6 are unconstitutionally vague and that prohibiting presence at cockfight preparations is unconstitutionally over-broad in violation | 1 | 1 |
Lozoya v. Stategreen2 sentences1998See also Lozoya ¶¶ 22, 23, 932 P.2d at 30 (at sentencing after entrance of guilty plea, trial court erroneously ruled provisions of the Delayed Sentencing Program for Young Adults, which would have allowed imposition of a suspended sentence, were not available to Petitioner; case remanded for resentencing); Day v. State, 1989 OK CR 83, ¶ 21 , 784 P.2d 79, 85 . [6] Lozoya, ¶ 23, 932 P.2d at 30 . [7] The overbreadth doctrine evolved from the need to protect certain freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution from governmental intrusion. 1998See also Lozoya ¶¶ 22, 23, 932 P.2d at 30 (at sentencing after entrance of guilty plea, trial court erroneously ruled provisions of the Delayed Sentencing Program for Young Adults, which would have allowed imposition of a suspended sentence, were not available to Petitioner; case remanded for resentencing); Day v. State, 1989 OK CR 83, ¶ 21 , 784 P.2d 79, 85 . [6] Lozoya, ¶ 23, 932 P.2d at 30 . [7] The overbreadth doctrine evolved from the need to protect certain freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution from governmental intrusion. | 1 | 1 |
Pegg v. Stategreen2 sentences1994In Pegg v. State, 659 P.2d 370, 372 (Okl.Cr.1983), this Court considered an overbreadth challenge and recognized the limitations set out in Broadrick, supra, on the use of over-breadth to void a statute on its face. 1994In Pegg v. State, 659 P.2d 370, 372 (Okl.Cr. 1983), this Court considered an overbreadth challenge and recognized the limitations set out in Broadrick, supra, on the use of overbreadth to void a statute on its face. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McNeill v. City of Tulsa
green
2 sentences2004Further, as previously noted, the U.S. Supreme Court has additionally provided “the mere fact that one can conceive of some impermissible applications of a statute is not sufficient to render it susceptible to an overbreadth challenge.” Members of the City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. at 800 , 104 S.Ct. 2118 . ¶ 69 This Court has provided “[i]n the interpretation of statutes, courts do not limit their consideration to a single word or phrase in isolation to attempt to determine their meaning, but construe together the various provisions of relevant legislative enaet-ments to asce 2004Further, as previously noted, the U.S. Supreme Court has additionally provided “the mere fact that one can conceive of some impermissible applications of a statute is not sufficient to render it susceptible to an overbreadth challenge.” Members of the City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. at 800 , 104 S.Ct. 2118 . ¶ 69 This Court has provided “[i]n the interpretation of statutes, courts do not limit their consideration to a single word or phrase in isolation to attempt to determine their meaning, but construe together the various provisions of relevant legislative enaet-ments to asce | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Young
green
1 sentence2004To the extent the prohibition against “willfully insti-gat[ing] or encourag[ing]” cockfighting, may be accomplished by a verbal act, it is not unconstitutionally vague. ¶ 56 Respondents cite State v. Young, 695 S.W.2d 882 (Mo.1985) for the proposition the term “encourage” in an animal fighting statute is unconstitutionally vague. . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
In Re Initiative Petition No. 341, State Question No. 627
green
2 sentences2004This Court has ruled that “[a] prerequisite to an overbreadth challenge is that the law itself will create a ‘realistic danger’ that first amendment protections will be compromised.” In re Initiative Petition No. 341, 1990 OK 53 , 796 P.2d 267, 269 . 2004This Court has ruled that “[a] prerequisite to an overbreadth challenge is that the law itself will create a ‘realistic danger’ that first amendment protections will be compromised.” In re Initiative Petition No. 341, 1990 OK 53 , 796 P.2d 267, 269 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Special Indemnity Fund v. Choate
green
1 sentence2004Fund v. Choate, 847 P.2d at 807 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Claiborne Hardware Co.
green
2 sentences2004When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.” N.A.A.C.P. v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 928 , 102 S.Ct. 3409 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1215 (1982)(emphasis added). ¶ 60, In that the Oklahoma statute is primarily directed at the conduct of cockfighting and the willful instigation or encouragement of same, and “not merely speech is involved,” the overbreadth test of Broadrick v. Oklar homa must be applied to determine whether the alleged overbreadth of this statute “is not only ... real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statute’s plain 2004When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.” N.A.A.C.P. v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 928 , 102 S.Ct. 3409 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1215 (1982)(emphasis added). ¶ 60, In that the Oklahoma statute is primarily directed at the conduct of cockfighting and the willful instigation or encouragement of same, and “not merely speech is involved,” the overbreadth test of Broadrick v. Oklar homa must be applied to determine whether the alleged overbreadth of this statute “is not only ... real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statute’s plain | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent
green
2 sentences2004When the words “keeps any pit or other place” are read in context with the remainder of the statutory language, the prohibition is readily understood and clearly limited in scope to prohibit the keeping of “any pit or other place ... to be used in permitting any cockfight.” ¶ 64 The Supreme Court has provided, “the mere fact that one can conceive of some impermissible applications of a statute is not sufficient to render it susceptible to an overbreadth challenge.” Members of the City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, supra, 466 U.S. at 800 , 104 S.Ct. 2118 . 2004When the words “keeps any pit or other place” are read in context with the remainder of the statutory language, the prohibition is readily understood and clearly limited in scope to prohibit the keeping of “any pit or other place ... to be used in permitting any cockfight.” ¶ 64 The Supreme Court has provided, “the mere fact that one can conceive of some impermissible applications of a statute is not sufficient to render it susceptible to an overbreadth challenge.” Members of the City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, supra, 466 U.S. at 800 , 104 S.Ct. 2118 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
City of Chicago v. Morales
green
2 sentences2001First, laws that inhibit the exercise of First Amendment rights may be challenged under the overbreadth doctrine as facially invalid "if the impermissible applications of the law are substantial when 'judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep.'" Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 52 , 119 S.Ct. 1849, 1857 , 144 L.Ed.2d 67 (1999), quoting from *775 Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 610 , 93 S.Ct. 2908, 2915 , 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973). 2001First, laws that inhibit the exercise of First Amendment rights may be challenged under the overbreadth doctrine as facially invalid "if the impermissible applications of the law are substantial when 'judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep.'" Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 52 , 119 S.Ct. 1849, 1857 , 144 L.Ed.2d 67 (1999), quoting from *775 Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 610 , 93 S.Ct. 2908, 2915 , 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Kolender v. Lawson
green
2 sentences2001Enact ments that do not fall within the overbreadth doctrine may nevertheless be challenged under the void for vagueness doctrine if the law "fails to establish standards for the police and public that are sufficient to guard against the arbitrary deprivation of liberty interests." Morales, supra; Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 358 , 103 S.Ct. 1855 , 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983). 2001Enact ments that do not fall within the overbreadth doctrine may nevertheless be challenged under the void for vagueness doctrine if the law "fails to establish standards for the police and public that are sufficient to guard against the arbitrary deprivation of liberty interests." Morales, supra; Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 358 , 103 S.Ct. 1855 , 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Day v. State
green
2 sentences1998See also Lozoya ¶¶ 22, 23, 932 P.2d at 30 (at sentencing after entrance of guilty plea, trial court erroneously ruled provisions of the Delayed Sentencing Program for Young Adults, which would have allowed imposition of a suspended sentence, were not available to Petitioner; case remanded for resentencing); Day v. State, 1989 OK CR 83, ¶ 21 , 784 P.2d 79, 85 . [6] Lozoya, ¶ 23, 932 P.2d at 30 . [7] The overbreadth doctrine evolved from the need to protect certain freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution from governmental intrusion. 1998See also Lozoya ¶¶ 22, 23, 932 P.2d at 30 (at sentencing after entrance of guilty plea, trial court erroneously ruled provisions of the Delayed Sentencing Program for Young Adults, which would have allowed imposition of a suspended sentence, were not available to Petitioner; case remanded for resentencing); Day v. State, 1989 OK CR 83, ¶ 21 , 784 P.2d 79, 85 . [6] Lozoya, ¶ 23, 932 P.2d at 30 . [7] The overbreadth doctrine evolved from the need to protect certain freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution from governmental intrusion. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville
green
2 sentences1988C.f., Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 216 , 95 S.Ct. 2268, 2276 , 45 L.Ed.2d 125 (1975). 1988C.f., Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 216 , 95 S.Ct. 2268, 2276 , 45 L.Ed.2d 125 (1975). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Lewis v. City of New Orleans
green
2 sentences1974Lewis v. City of New Orleans, ___ U.S. ___, 94 S.Ct. 970 , 39 L.Ed.2d 214 (1974); Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 18-21 , 91 S.Ct. 1780 , 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971); Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 520 , 92 S.Ct. 1103 , 31 L.Ed.2d 408 (1972). 1974Lewis v. City of New Orleans, ___ U.S. ___, 94 S.Ct. 970 , 39 L.Ed.2d 214 (1974); Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 18-21 , 91 S.Ct. 1780 , 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971); Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 520 , 92 S.Ct. 1103 , 31 L.Ed.2d 408 (1972). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Cohen v. California
green
2 sentences1974Lewis v. City of New Orleans, ___ U.S. ___, 94 S.Ct. 970 , 39 L.Ed.2d 214 (1974); Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 18-21 , 91 S.Ct. 1780 , 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971); Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 520 , 92 S.Ct. 1103 , 31 L.Ed.2d 408 (1972). 1974Lewis v. City of New Orleans, ___ U.S. ___, 94 S.Ct. 970 , 39 L.Ed.2d 214 (1974); Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 18-21 , 91 S.Ct. 1780 , 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971); Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 520 , 92 S.Ct. 1103 , 31 L.Ed.2d 408 (1972). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Gooding v. Wilson
green
2 sentences1974Lewis v. City of New Orleans, ___ U.S. ___, 94 S.Ct. 970 , 39 L.Ed.2d 214 (1974); Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 18-21 , 91 S.Ct. 1780 , 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971); Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 520 , 92 S.Ct. 1103 , 31 L.Ed.2d 408 (1972). 1974Lewis v. City of New Orleans, ___ U.S. ___, 94 S.Ct. 970 , 39 L.Ed.2d 214 (1974); Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 18-21 , 91 S.Ct. 1780 , 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971); Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 520 , 92 S.Ct. 1103 , 31 L.Ed.2d 408 (1972). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.