vagueness challenge in Delaware

11 Delaware opinions name it 3 courts 1978–2024 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Delaware 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 (9)

Case	Followed	Cited
Upshur v. Stategreen del · 1980 · cited in 2 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 1996–2009 2 sentences 2009In 1981, the Legislature amended this definition in response to a vagueness challenge brought in Upshur v. State, 420 A.2d 165, 168 (Del. 1980), even though this Court rejected the claim that a "knife of any sort" was unconstitutionally vague. 1996This additional language clarified the definition in response to the vagueness challenge brought in Upshur v. State, Del.Supr., 420 A.2d 165, 168 (1980), even though we rejected the contention that the term “knife of any sort” was unconstitutionally vague.	2	2
State v. Bakergreen del · 1998 · cited in 2 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2005–2024 2 sentences 2024Ct. 2022); Hoover v. State, 958 A.2d 816, 820 (Del. 2009); State v. Barker, 720 A.2d 1139, 1147 (Del. 1998). 5 the light of the facts of the case at hand.’”6 The Court will employ a two-step analysis to determine if a statute is unconstitutionally vague.7 First, the Court must determine “whether the terms of the statute are sufficiently explicit to provide notice of the prohibited conduct.”8 Second, the Court must consider “whether the terms of the statute are so vague that persons of common intelligence must guess at the statute’s meaning and would differ as to its application.”9 A. The Condu 2005Baker, 720 A.2d at 1148 . 16 .	1	2
Poon v. Stategreen del · 2005 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024A statute is void for vagueness if it fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that the contemplated behavior is forbidden or if it encourages arbitrary or erratic enforcement.5 When the vagueness challenge does not involve activities protected under the First Amendment, the Statute must be examined “’in 3 Carter v. State, 933 A.2d 774, 777 (Del. 2007) (citing Poon v. State, 880 A.2d 236, 238 (Del. 2005)). 4 Conyers, 396 A.2d at 160 (quoting Biter, 119 A.2d at 898 ). 5 State v. Flowers, 276 A.3d 106 (Super.	1	1
Hoover v. Stategreen del · 2008 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024Ct. 2022); Hoover v. State, 958 A.2d 816, 820 (Del. 2009); State v. Barker, 720 A.2d 1139, 1147 (Del. 1998). 5 the light of the facts of the case at hand.’”6 The Court will employ a two-step analysis to determine if a statute is unconstitutionally vague.7 First, the Court must determine “whether the terms of the statute are sufficiently explicit to provide notice of the prohibited conduct.”8 Second, the Court must consider “whether the terms of the statute are so vague that persons of common intelligence must guess at the statute’s meaning and would differ as to its application.”9 A. The Condu	1	1
Carter v. Stategreen del · 2007 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024A statute is void for vagueness if it fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that the contemplated behavior is forbidden or if it encourages arbitrary or erratic enforcement.5 When the vagueness challenge does not involve activities protected under the First Amendment, the Statute must be examined “’in 3 Carter v. State, 933 A.2d 774, 777 (Del. 2007) (citing Poon v. State, 880 A.2d 236, 238 (Del. 2005)). 4 Conyers, 396 A.2d at 160 (quoting Biter, 119 A.2d at 898 ). 5 State v. Flowers, 276 A.3d 106 (Super.	1	1
State v. Fonsecagreen ri · 1996 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996 1 sentence 1996State v. Fonseca, R.I.Supr., 670 A.2d 1237, 1239 (1996).	1	1
United States Civil Service Commission v. National Ass'n of Letter Carriersgreen scotus · 1973 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992 2 sentences 1992See Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. at 579 , 93 S.Ct. at 2897 , 37 L.Ed.2d 796 (1973); Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 608 , 93 S.Ct. at 2914 , 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973). 1992See Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. at 579 , 93 S.Ct. at 2897 , 37 L.Ed.2d 796 (1973); Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 608 , 93 S.Ct. at 2914 , 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973).	1	1
Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.green scotus · 1982 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 2 sentences 1991Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Est., 455 U.S. 489, 499 , 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1194 , 71 L.Ed.2d 362, 372 (1982). 11 . 1991Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Est., 455 U.S. 489, 499 , 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1194 , 71 L.Ed.2d 362, 372 (1982). 11 .	1	1
Redlich v. Capri Cinema, Inc.green nyappdiv · 1973 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981 2 sentences 1981See Redlich v. Capri Cinema, Inc., 349 N.Y.S.2d 697 , 43 A.D.2d 27 , (1973); State v. Burgun, 49 Ohio App.2d 112 , 3 Ohio Op.3d 177 , 359 N.E.2d 1018 (1976); State v. Allen, 1 Kan.App.2d 32 , 562 P.2d 445 (1977); Hess v. State, Okl.Cr. 536 P.2d 362 (1975); State v. Welke, 298 Minn. 402 , 216 N.W.2d 641 (1974); State ex rel. 1981See Redlich v. Capri Cinema, Inc., 349 N.Y.S.2d 697 , 43 A.D.2d 27 , (1973); State v. Burgun, 49 Ohio App.2d 112 , 3 Ohio Op.3d 177 , 359 N.E.2d 1018 (1976); State v. Allen, 1 Kan.App.2d 32 , 562 P.2d 445 (1977); Hess v. State, Okl.Cr. 536 P.2d 362 (1975); State v. Welke, 298 Minn. 402 , 216 N.W.2d 641 (1974); State ex rel.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (10)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Biter green delsuperct · 1955 1 sentence 2024A statute is void for vagueness if it fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that the contemplated behavior is forbidden or if it encourages arbitrary or erratic enforcement.5 When the vagueness challenge does not involve activities protected under the First Amendment, the Statute must be examined “’in 3 Carter v. State, 933 A.2d 774, 777 (Del. 2007) (citing Poon v. State, 880 A.2d 236, 238 (Del. 2005)). 4 Conyers, 396 A.2d at 160 (quoting Biter, 119 A.2d at 898 ). 5 State v. Flowers, 276 A.3d 106 (Super.	1	2024–2024
Conyers v. State green del · 1978 1 sentence 2024A statute is void for vagueness if it fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that the contemplated behavior is forbidden or if it encourages arbitrary or erratic enforcement.5 When the vagueness challenge does not involve activities protected under the First Amendment, the Statute must be examined “’in 3 Carter v. State, 933 A.2d 774, 777 (Del. 2007) (citing Poon v. State, 880 A.2d 236, 238 (Del. 2005)). 4 Conyers, 396 A.2d at 160 (quoting Biter, 119 A.2d at 898 ). 5 State v. Flowers, 276 A.3d 106 (Super.	1	2024–2024
Broadrick v. Oklahoma green scotus · 1973 2 sentences 1992See Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. at 579 , 93 S.Ct. at 2897 , 37 L.Ed.2d 796 (1973); Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 608 , 93 S.Ct. at 2914 , 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973). 1992See Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. at 579 , 93 S.Ct. at 2897 , 37 L.Ed.2d 796 (1973); Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 608 , 93 S.Ct. at 2914 , 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973).	1	1992–1992
State v. Colasuonno green delsuperct · 1981 1 sentence 1988Colasuonno, supra; Atlantis I, supra. By presenting factors by which a person subject to reporting and a finder of fact may determine what conduct violates the statute, this Court has interpreted the statute so as to avoid a vagueness challenge given the circumstances of this case.	1	1988–1988
Hess v. State green oklacrimapp · 1975 1 sentence 1981See Redlich v. Capri Cinema, Inc., 349 N.Y.S.2d 697 , 43 A.D.2d 27 , (1973); State v. Burgun, 49 Ohio App.2d 112 , 3 Ohio Op.3d 177 , 359 N.E.2d 1018 (1976); State v. Allen, 1 Kan.App.2d 32 , 562 P.2d 445 (1977); Hess v. State, Okl.Cr. 536 P.2d 362 (1975); State v. Welke, 298 Minn. 402 , 216 N.W.2d 641 (1974); State ex rel.	1	1981–1981
State v. Allen & Rosebaugh neutral kanctapp · 1977 2 sentences 1981See Redlich v. Capri Cinema, Inc., 349 N.Y.S.2d 697 , 43 A.D.2d 27 , (1973); State v. Burgun, 49 Ohio App.2d 112 , 3 Ohio Op.3d 177 , 359 N.E.2d 1018 (1976); State v. Allen, 1 Kan.App.2d 32 , 562 P.2d 445 (1977); Hess v. State, Okl.Cr. 536 P.2d 362 (1975); State v. Welke, 298 Minn. 402 , 216 N.W.2d 641 (1974); State ex rel. 1981See Redlich v. Capri Cinema, Inc., 349 N.Y.S.2d 697 , 43 A.D.2d 27 , (1973); State v. Burgun, 49 Ohio App.2d 112 , 3 Ohio Op.3d 177 , 359 N.E.2d 1018 (1976); State v. Allen, 1 Kan.App.2d 32 , 562 P.2d 445 (1977); Hess v. State, Okl.Cr. 536 P.2d 362 (1975); State v. Welke, 298 Minn. 402 , 216 N.W.2d 641 (1974); State ex rel.	1	1981–1981
State v. Welke green minn · 1974 2 sentences 1981See Redlich v. Capri Cinema, Inc., 349 N.Y.S.2d 697 , 43 A.D.2d 27 , (1973); State v. Burgun, 49 Ohio App.2d 112 , 3 Ohio Op.3d 177 , 359 N.E.2d 1018 (1976); State v. Allen, 1 Kan.App.2d 32 , 562 P.2d 445 (1977); Hess v. State, Okl.Cr. 536 P.2d 362 (1975); State v. Welke, 298 Minn. 402 , 216 N.W.2d 641 (1974); State ex rel. 1981See Redlich v. Capri Cinema, Inc., 349 N.Y.S.2d 697 , 43 A.D.2d 27 , (1973); State v. Burgun, 49 Ohio App.2d 112 , 3 Ohio Op.3d 177 , 359 N.E.2d 1018 (1976); State v. Allen, 1 Kan.App.2d 32 , 562 P.2d 445 (1977); Hess v. State, Okl.Cr. 536 P.2d 362 (1975); State v. Welke, 298 Minn. 402 , 216 N.W.2d 641 (1974); State ex rel.	1	1981–1981
State v. Burgun green ohioctapp · 1976 2 sentences 1981See Redlich v. Capri Cinema, Inc., 349 N.Y.S.2d 697 , 43 A.D.2d 27 , (1973); State v. Burgun, 49 Ohio App.2d 112 , 3 Ohio Op.3d 177 , 359 N.E.2d 1018 (1976); State v. Allen, 1 Kan.App.2d 32 , 562 P.2d 445 (1977); Hess v. State, Okl.Cr. 536 P.2d 362 (1975); State v. Welke, 298 Minn. 402 , 216 N.W.2d 641 (1974); State ex rel. 1981See Redlich v. Capri Cinema, Inc., 349 N.Y.S.2d 697 , 43 A.D.2d 27 , (1973); State v. Burgun, 49 Ohio App.2d 112 , 3 Ohio Op.3d 177 , 359 N.E.2d 1018 (1976); State v. Allen, 1 Kan.App.2d 32 , 562 P.2d 445 (1977); Hess v. State, Okl.Cr. 536 P.2d 362 (1975); State v. Welke, 298 Minn. 402 , 216 N.W.2d 641 (1974); State ex rel.	1	1981–1981
Wright v. State green del · 1979 1 sentence 1980Wright v. State, Del.Supr., 405 A.2d 685 (1979).	1	1980–1980
Arnold v. State green ga · 1976 1 sentence 1978In discussing the vagueness doctrine, the Court noted: “This doctrine has particular application to death penalty statutes after Furman v. Georgia, supra, where, if anything is made clear, it is that a wide latitude of discretion in a jury as to whether or not to impose the death penalty is unconstitutional”. ( 224 S.E.2d at 391 ).	1	1978–1978

Where else courts name it

CA 356 (1975–2026) WA 312 (1973–2026) TX 223 (1969–2026) IL 160 (1980–2026) CT 116 (1978–2026) OH 102 (1973–2026) CO 99 (1973–2026) FL 91 (1973–2025) NY 87 (1969–2026) NJ 79 (1979–2026) PA 77 (1976–2026) OR 75 (1976–2025) MI 70 (1906–2026) WI 67 (1979–2026) GA 57 (1981–2026) IA 52 (1976–2024) MO 48 (1977–2024) IN 46 (1979–2026) AZ 45 (1978–2026) MA 44 (1958–2026) NM 44 (1971–2023) NV 37 (1987–2026) MN 37 (1973–2024) MD 36 (1976–2024) TN 35 (1973–2025) KS 30 (1978–2026) ID 29 (1985–2025) DC 29 (1972–2021) VA 29 (1975–2024) AL 28 (1982–2016) ND 24 (1975–2025) NE 21 (1897–2023) UT 20 (1988–2026) ME 19 (1981–2024) HI 18 (1919–2019) AK 17 (1972–2026) AR 14 (1987–2015) MS 13 (1985–2020) NH 13 (1974–2025) LA 13 (1985–2023) WV 13 (1982–2023) WY 12 (1979–2014) DE 11 (1978–2024) RI 11 (1978–2015) NC 10 (1981–2026) KY 10 (1985–2020) VT 10 (1999–2026) MT 9 (1994–2026) SC 6 (1990–2025) OK 5 (1978–2005) SD 5 (2003–2014)

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