facial overbreadth challenge in Washington

2007Under the circumstances, we hold that an overbreadth challenge to the easement is unavailable to the Plaintiff. ¶ 48 In Members of the City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 , 104 S.Ct. 2118 , 80 L.Ed.2d 772 , the Court noted that the facial overbreadth doctrine represents an exception to the general rule that "a litigant only has standing to vindicate his own constitutional rights." Vincent, 466 U.S. at 796 , 104 S.Ct. 2118 .

2007Ed. 2d 772 (1984), the Court noted that the facial overbreadth doctrine represents an exception to the general rule that “a litigant only has standing to vindicate his own constitutional rights.” Vincent, 466 U.S. at 796 .

2016Br. of Pet'r at 17-18 (seeking invalidation of ordinance in its entirety). 1 Because a facial overbreadth challenge under the First Amendment to the federal constitution and article I, section 5 of the Washington State Constitution is primarily concerned with the chilling effect of sweeping speech restrictions, we may not "sever" portions of statutes or ordinances prior to considering whether they make '"unlawful a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct ... even if they also have legitimate application."' City ofSeattle v. Huff, 111 Wn.2d 923, 925 , 767 P.2d 572 (1989) (quoti

2016Br. of Pet'r at 17-18 (seeking invalidation of ordinance in its entirety). 1 Because a facial overbreadth challenge under the First Amendment to the federal constitution and article I, section 5 of the Washington State Constitution is primarily concerned with the chilling effect of sweeping speech restrictions, we may not "sever" portions of statutes or ordinances prior to considering whether they make '"unlawful a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct ... even if they also have legitimate application."' City ofSeattle v. Huff, 111 Wn.2d 923, 925 , 767 P.2d 572 (1989) (quoti

2016Br. of Pet'r at 17-18 (seeking invalidation of ordinance in its entirety). 1 Because a facial overbreadth challenge under the First Amendment to the federal constitution and article I, section 5 of the Washington State Constitution is primarily concerned with the chilling effect of sweeping speech restrictions, we may not "sever" portions of statutes or ordinances prior to considering whether they make '"unlawful a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct ... even if they also have legitimate application."' City ofSeattle v. Huff, 111 Wn.2d 923, 925 , 767 P.2d 572 (1989) (quoti

2016Br. of Pet'r at 17-18 (seeking invalidation of ordinance in its entirety). 1 Because a facial overbreadth challenge under the First Amendment to the federal constitution and article I, section 5 of the Washington State Constitution is primarily concerned with the chilling effect of sweeping speech restrictions, we may not "sever" portions of statutes or ordinances prior to considering whether they make '"unlawful a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct ... even if they also have legitimate application."' City ofSeattle v. Huff, 111 Wn.2d 923, 925 , 767 P.2d 572 (1989) (quoti

2016Br. of Pet'r at 17-18 (seeking invalidation of ordinance in its entirety). 1 Because a facial overbreadth challenge under the First Amendment to the federal constitution and article I, section 5 of the Washington State Constitution is primarily concerned with the chilling effect of sweeping speech restrictions, we may not "sever" portions of statutes or ordinances prior to considering whether they make '"unlawful a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct ... even if they also have legitimate application."' City ofSeattle v. Huff, 111 Wn.2d 923, 925 , 767 P.2d 572 (1989) (quoti

2016Br. of Pet'r at 17-18 (seeking invalidation of ordinance in its entirety). 1 Because a facial overbreadth challenge under the First Amendment to the federal constitution and article I, section 5 of the Washington State Constitution is primarily concerned with the chilling effect of sweeping speech restrictions, we may not "sever" portions of statutes or ordinances prior to considering whether they make '"unlawful a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct ... even if they also have legitimate application."' City ofSeattle v. Huff, 111 Wn.2d 923, 925 , 767 P.2d 572 (1989) (quoti

2002O’Day v. King County, 109 Wn.2d 796, 803-04 , 749 P.2d 142 (1988).

2002O’Day v. King County, 109 Wn.2d 796, 803-04 , 749 P.2d 142 (1988).

2021Id.

2015As part of its analysis, Division One reviewed RCW 69.51A.040, which provides that “[t]he medical use of cannabis in accordance with the terms and conditions of this chapter does 3 The City did not cite Cannatonics for having any such advertising, but a facial overbreadth challenge to a statute is an exception to the traditional rule that the “person to whom a statute may constitutionally be applied may not challenge that statute on the ground that it may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to others in situations not before the Court.” New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 767-69 , 102 S. C

2015As part of its analysis, Division One reviewed RCW 69.51A.040, which provides that “[t]he medical use of cannabis in accordance with the terms and conditions of this chapter does 3 The City did not cite Cannatonics for having any such advertising, but a facial overbreadth challenge to a statute is an exception to the traditional rule that the “person to whom a statute may constitutionally be applied may not challenge that statute on the ground that it may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to others in situations not before the Court.” New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 767-69 , 102 S. C