12 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Idaho 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.green2 sentences2009Where a facial overbreadth challenge is presented, our inquiry is to “determine whether the enactment reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct.” Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 494 (1982); State v. Bitt, 118 Idaho 584, 588 , 798 P.2d 43, 47 (1990); Richards, 127 Idaho at 35 , 896 P.2d at 361 . 2004Where a facial overbreadth challenge is presented, this Court’s inquiry is to “determine whether the enactment reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct.” Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. 489, 494 , 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1191 , 71 L.Ed.2d 362, 369 (1982). | 5 | 7 |
State v. Newmangreen2 sentences1995Where a facial overbreadth challenge is presented, our inquiry is to “determine whether the enactment reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct.” Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. 489, 494 , 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1191 , 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982) (emphasis added); State v. Bitt, 118 Idaho 584, 588 , 798 P.2d 43, 47 (1990); Newman, 108 Idaho at 11 , 696 P.2d at 862 . 1995Where a facial overbreadth challenge is presented, our inquiry is to “determine whether the enactment reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct.” Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. 489, 494 , 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1191 , 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982) (emphasis added); State v. Bitt, 118 Idaho 584, 588 , 798 P.2d 43, 47 (1990); Newman, 108 Idaho at 11 , 696 P.2d at 862 . | 2 | 4 |
State v. Bittgreen2 sentences2009Where a facial overbreadth challenge is presented, our inquiry is to “determine whether the enactment reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct.” Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 494 (1982); State v. Bitt, 118 Idaho 584, 588 , 798 P.2d 43, 47 (1990); Richards, 127 Idaho at 35 , 896 P.2d at 361 . 2009Where a facial overbreadth challenge is presented, our inquiry is to “determine whether the enactment reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct.” Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 494 (1982); State v. Bitt, 118 Idaho 584, 588 , 798 P.2d 43, 47 (1990); Richards, 127 Idaho at 35 , 896 P.2d at 361 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Leferinkgreen2 sentences2003State v. Leferink, 133 Idaho 780, 784-85 , 992 P.2d 775, 779-80 (1999). 2003State v. Leferink, 133 Idaho 780, 784-85 , 992 P.2d 775, 779-80 (1999). | 1 | 2 |
Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc.green2 sentences1999“If the over-breadth is ‘substantial,’ the law may not be enforced against anyone, including the party before the court, until it is narrowed to reach only unprotected activity, whether by legislative action or by judicial construction or partial invalidation.” Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 503-04 , 105 S.Ct. 2794, 2802 , 86 L.Ed.2d 394, 406 (1985). 1999“If the over-breadth is ‘substantial,’ the law may not be enforced against anyone, including the party before the court, until it is narrowed to reach only unprotected activity, whether by legislative action or by judicial construction or partial invalidation.” Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 503-04 , 105 S.Ct. 2794, 2802 , 86 L.Ed.2d 394, 406 (1985). | 1 | 2 |
Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincentgreen1 sentence2009In short, a facial overbreadth challenge is allowed only when there is “a realistic danger that the statute itself will significantly compromise recognized First Amendment protections of parties not before the Court.” City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 801 (1984). 6 Here, the Wendell curfew ordinance does not specifically target First Amendment activities; rather it aims to control certain conduct deemed harmful to the well-being of the city. | 1 | 1 |
Broadrick v. Oklahomagreen2 sentences2004Statutes are not unconstitutional due to facial overbreadth unless the overbreadth is “not only real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 615 , 93 S.Ct. 2908, 2917 , 37 L.Ed.2d 830, 842 (1973). 2004Statutes are not unconstitutional due to facial overbreadth unless the overbreadth is “not only real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 615 , 93 S.Ct. 2908, 2917 , 37 L.Ed.2d 830, 842 (1973). | 1 | 1 |
Kleiber v. City of Idaho Fallsgreen2 sentences2002Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 494 , 102 S.Ct. at 1190 , 71 L.Ed.2d at 368 ; Kleiber v. City of Idaho Falls, 110 Idaho 501, 504 , 716 P.2d 1273, 1276 (1986). 2002Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 494 , 102 S.Ct. at 1190 , 71 L.Ed.2d at 368 ; Kleiber v. City of Idaho Falls, 110 Idaho 501, 504 , 716 P.2d 1273, 1276 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Richards
green
2 sentences2021We find useful similarities between the present case and State v. Richards, 127 Idaho 31 , 896 P.2d 357 (Ct. App. 1995), in which the Idaho Court of Appeals rejected a facial overbreadth challenge to a statute that proscribed harassing phone calls. 2021We find useful similarities between the present case and State v. Richards, 127 Idaho 31 , 896 P.2d 357 (Ct. App. 1995), in which the Idaho Court of Appeals rejected a facial overbreadth challenge to a statute that proscribed harassing phone calls. | 2 | 2009–2021 |
State v. Poe
green
2 sentences2025In Poe, the Court held, in the context of a facial overbreadth challenge, that the subpart of I.C. § 18-6409 prohibiting loud or unusual noise regulates “conduct, not pure speech, and [is] neutral with respect to the content of any expressive element of such conduct that may exist in a particular circumstance.” Poe, 139 Idaho at 895 , 88 P.3d at 714 . 2025In Poe, the Court held, in the context of a facial overbreadth challenge, that the subpart of I.C. § 18-6409 prohibiting loud or unusual noise regulates “conduct, not pure speech, and [is] neutral with respect to the content of any expressive element of such conduct that may exist in a particular circumstance.” Poe, 139 Idaho at 895 , 88 P.3d at 714 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
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.
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.