facial vagueness challenge in Florida

13 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2018 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Florida 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 (12)

Case	Followed	Cited
Sieniarecki v. Stategreen fla · 2000 · cited in 4 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2001–2018 2 sentences 2018A defendant may not make a facial vagueness challenge if the defendant's conduct is "clearly proscribed by the plain and ordinary meaning of the statute." Sieniarecki, 756 So. 2d at 74 (quoting Barnes, 686 So. 2d at 637 ). 2001As this Court explained in Sieniarecki v. State, 756 So.2d 68, 75 (Fla.2000), a person to whom a statute may constitutionally be applied lacks standing to raise a facial vagueness challenge on the ground that the statute may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to others in situations not before the Court.	3	4
Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.green scotus · 1982 · cited in 5 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1997–2012 2 sentences 2005See Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 , 358 n. 8, 103 S.Ct. 1855 , 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983); see also Village of Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 494-95 , 102 S.Ct. 1186 (stating that the court should examine a facial vagueness challenge "and assuming the enactment implicates no constitutionally protected conduct, should uphold the challenge only if the enactment is vague in all of its applications"). 2005See Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 , 358 n. 8, 103 S.Ct. 1855 , 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983); see also Village of Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 494-95 , 102 S.Ct. 1186 (stating that the court should examine a facial vagueness challenge "and assuming the enactment implicates no constitutionally protected conduct, should uphold the challenge only if the enactment is vague in all of its applications").	2	5
Jordan v. Pughgreen ca10 · 2005 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 1 sentence 2018See Jordan , 425 F.3d at 828 ("To mount a facial vagueness challenge, the litigant must show that the potential chilling effect on protected expression is both real and substantial.").	1	1
Salman v. United Statesgreen scotus · 2016 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 2 sentences 2018See Salman v. United States , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 420 , 428-29, 196 L.Ed.2d 351 (2016) (rejecting an as-applied vagueness challenge in part because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the statute was "shapeless," plagued by "hopeless indeterminacy," or subject to "grave uncertainty" regarding its scope (quoting Johnson , 135 S.Ct. at 2557 , 2558 , 2560 ) ). 2018See Salman v. United States , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 420 , 428-29, 196 L.Ed.2d 351 (2016) (rejecting an as-applied vagueness challenge in part because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the statute was "shapeless," plagued by "hopeless indeterminacy," or subject to "grave uncertainty" regarding its scope (quoting Johnson , 135 S.Ct. at 2557 , 2558 , 2560 ) ).	1	1
Johnson v. United Statesgreen scotus · 2015 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 2 sentences 2018Thus a "shapeless," Johnson , 135 S.Ct. at 2560 , "hopeless[ly] indetermina[te]," id. at 2558 , statute that produces "grave uncertainty," id. at 2557 , regarding its scope will not survive a facial vagueness challenge even though "some conduct ... clearly falls within the provision's grasp," id. at 2561 . 2018Thus a "shapeless," Johnson , 135 S.Ct. at 2560 , "hopeless[ly] indetermina[te]," id. at 2558 , statute that produces "grave uncertainty," id. at 2557 , regarding its scope will not survive a facial vagueness challenge even though "some conduct ... clearly falls within the provision's grasp," id. at 2561 .	1	1
State v. Baalgreen fladistctapp · 1996 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 1 sentence 2012Id.; accord State v. Baal, 680 So.2d 608, 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).	1	1
State v. Baldenegrogreen arizctapp · 1996 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 2 sentences 2012See Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 495 n. 7, 102 S.Ct. 1186 ; Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 756 , 94 S.Ct. 2547 , 41 L.Ed.2d 439 (1974); Sieniarecki v. State, 756 So.2d 68, 75 (Fla.2000); Arizona v. Baldenegro, 188 Ariz. 10 , 932 P.2d 275, 279 (Ariz.App.Ct.1996). 2012See Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 495 n. 7, 102 S.Ct. 1186 ; Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 756 , 94 S.Ct. 2547 , 41 L.Ed.2d 439 (1974); Sieniarecki v. State, 756 So.2d 68, 75 (Fla.2000); Arizona v. Baldenegro, 188 Ariz. 10 , 932 P.2d 275, 279 (Ariz.App.Ct.1996).	1	1
Brown v. Stategreen fla · 1994 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 1 sentence 2010NICA argues that the Samples appear to be asserting a facial vagueness challenge. “[A] facial challenge for vagueness will be upheld only if the enactment is impermissibly vague in all of its applications.” Brown v. State, 629 So.2d 841, 843 (Fla.1994); Cashatt, 873 So.2d at 434 .	1	1
Kolender v. Lawsongreen scotus · 1983 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005See Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 , 358 n. 8, 103 S.Ct. 1855 , 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983); see also Village of Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 494-95 , 102 S.Ct. 1186 (stating that the court should examine a facial vagueness challenge "and assuming the enactment implicates no constitutionally protected conduct, should uphold the challenge only if the enactment is vague in all of its applications"). 2005See Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 , 358 n. 8, 103 S.Ct. 1855 , 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983); see also Village of Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 494-95 , 102 S.Ct. 1186 (stating that the court should examine a facial vagueness challenge "and assuming the enactment implicates no constitutionally protected conduct, should uphold the challenge only if the enactment is vague in all of its applications").	1	1
McKenney v. Stategreen fla · 1980 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 1 sentence 2001See id.	1	1
Jean v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 1999 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 1 sentence 2001See Sieniarecki, 756 So.2d at 76 (one who engages in *272 some conduct that is clearly proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others); Jean v. State, 764 So.2d 605, 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)(if the statute is not vague when considered under the facts at hand, then, by definition, it cannot be vague in all of its applications).	1	1
State v. Mullergreen fla · 1997 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 1 sentence 2000Cf. Village of Hoffman, 455 U.S. at 495 , 102 S.Ct. 1186 (observing that "[a] plaintiff who engages in some conduct that is clearly proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others"); Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 756 , 94 S.Ct. 2547 , 41 L.Ed.2d 439 (1974) (recognizing that "[o]ne to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness"); see also State v. Muller, 693 So.2d 976 (Fla.1997) (holding that section 316.193(6)(d), Florida Statutes (1993), which requires impoundment or immobilization of a vehicle driven by	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (7)

Case	Cited	Years
Parker v. Levy green scotus · 1974 2 sentences 2012See Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 495 n. 7, 102 S.Ct. 1186 ; Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 756 , 94 S.Ct. 2547 , 41 L.Ed.2d 439 (1974); Sieniarecki v. State, 756 So.2d 68, 75 (Fla.2000); Arizona v. Baldenegro, 188 Ariz. 10 , 932 P.2d 275, 279 (Ariz.App.Ct.1996). 2012See Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 495 n. 7, 102 S.Ct. 1186 ; Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 756 , 94 S.Ct. 2547 , 41 L.Ed.2d 439 (1974); Sieniarecki v. State, 756 So.2d 68, 75 (Fla.2000); Arizona v. Baldenegro, 188 Ariz. 10 , 932 P.2d 275, 279 (Ariz.App.Ct.1996).	3	2000–2012
State v. Barnes green fladistctapp · 1996 1 sentence 2018A defendant may not make a facial vagueness challenge if the defendant's conduct is "clearly proscribed by the plain and ordinary meaning of the statute." Sieniarecki, 756 So. 2d at 74 (quoting Barnes, 686 So. 2d at 637 ).	1	2018–2018
Cashatt v. State green fladistctapp · 2004 1 sentence 2010NICA argues that the Samples appear to be asserting a facial vagueness challenge. “[A] facial challenge for vagueness will be upheld only if the enactment is impermissibly vague in all of its applications.” Brown v. State, 629 So.2d 841, 843 (Fla.1994); Cashatt, 873 So.2d at 434 .	1	2010–2010
Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. green scotus · 1976 2 sentences 2005Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 61 , 96 S.Ct. 2440 , 49 L.Ed.2d 310 (1976) (rejecting a facial vagueness challenge by complainants whose speech was unprotected because the law's limited impact on protected speech, the limited uncertainty in the ordinances, 1032 and the potential for a narrowing construction made it "an inappropriate case in which to adjudicate the hypothetical claims of persons not before the Court"). 2005Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 61 , 96 S.Ct. 2440 , 49 L.Ed.2d 310 (1976) (rejecting a facial vagueness challenge by complainants whose speech was unprotected because the law's limited impact on protected speech, the limited uncertainty in the ordinances, 1032 and the potential for a narrowing construction made it "an inappropriate case in which to adjudicate the hypothetical claims of persons not before the Court").	1	2005–2005
Kahles v. State green fla · 1995 1 sentence 1998In State v. Kahles, 644 So.2d 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), approved, 657 So.2d 897 (Fla.1995), this court explained the various principles that a court must apply in determining whether a criminal statute is facially unconstitutional for vagueness: The court should then examine the facial vagueness challenge and, assuming the enactment implicates no constitutionally protected conduct, should uphold the challenge only if the enactment is impermissibly vague in all of its applications.	1	1998–1998
State v. Kahles green fladistctapp · 1994 1 sentence 1998In State v. Kahles, 644 So.2d 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), approved, 657 So.2d 897 (Fla.1995), this court explained the various principles that a court must apply in determining whether a criminal statute is facially unconstitutional for vagueness: The court should then examine the facial vagueness challenge and, assuming the enactment implicates no constitutionally protected conduct, should uphold the challenge only if the enactment is impermissibly vague in all of its applications.	1	1998–1998
Steffel v. Thompson green scotus · 1974 2 sentences 1994A plaintiff who engages in some conduct that is clearly proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others.7 A court should therefore examine the complainant's conduct before 513 analyzing other hypothetical applications of the law. 5 A "facial" challenge, in this context, means a claim that the law is "invalid in toto and therefore incapable of any valid application." Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 474 , 94 S.Ct. 1209, 1223 , 39 L.Ed.2d 505 (1974). 1994A plaintiff who engages in some conduct that is clearly proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others.7 A court should therefore examine the complainant's conduct before 513 analyzing other hypothetical applications of the law. 5 A "facial" challenge, in this context, means a claim that the law is "invalid in toto and therefore incapable of any valid application." Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 474 , 94 S.Ct. 1209, 1223 , 39 L.Ed.2d 505 (1974).	1	1994–1994

Where else courts name it

TX 50 (1987–2025) CA 37 (1985–2024) WA 18 (1990–2025) OR 16 (1982–2022) IL 14 (1987–2024) FL 13 (1994–2018) ID 11 (1986–2024) UT 11 (1990–2022) GA 10 (2007–2026) CT 9 (1994–2026) NJ 7 (1983–2021) OH 7 (1998–2024) CO 7 (1999–2025) NV 6 (1992–2017) IA 5 (1987–2018) NM 5 (2007–2020) MT 3 (1993–2002) WY 3 (2003–2007) MD 3 (2019–2026) WI 3 (1997–2025) NE 3 (1987–2002) MI 2 (1990–2005) NC 2 (2015–2026) PA 2 (2004–2023) HI 2 (2007–2015) MN 2 (1985–2006) VA 2 (2018–2024)

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