11 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland 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 sentences2020See, e.g., Tidewater/Havre de Grace, Inc. v. Mayor & City Council of Havre de Grace, 337 Md. 338, 350 (1995) (deciding pre-enforcement facial vagueness claim as part of declaratory judgment action filed by marinas challenging Havre de Grace’s ordinance requiring marinas to collect and remit docking and storage fees); Village of Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 489, 497 (explaining that “[a] law that does not reach constitutionally protected conduct and therefore satisfies the overbreadth test may nevertheless be challenged on its face as unduly vague, in violation of due process” and reaching meri 2001Furthermore, the overbreadth doctrine would not be applicable in the Rowan situation because "the overbreadth doctrine does not apply to commercial speech.” Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, 455 U.S. 489, 497 , 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1192 , 71 L.Ed.2d 362, 370 (1982). . | 2 | 2 |
Carpetta v. Pi Kappa Alpha Fraternitygreen2 sentences2000Carpetta v. the Pi Kappa Alpha Fraternity, 100 Ohio Misc.2d 42 , 718 N.E.2d 1007, 1013-16 (Ct.Com.Pl. 1998). 2000Carpetta v. the Pi Kappa Alpha Fraternity, 100 Ohio Misc.2d 42 , 718 N.E.2d 1007, 1013-16 (Ct.Com.Pl. 1998). | 2 | 2 |
Broadrick v. Oklahomagreen2 sentences2025The overbreadth doctrine is “strong medicine” and should be “employed . . . only as a last resort.” Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 613 . 1988In addition to admonishing us that “application of the overbreadth doctrine in this manner is, manifestly, strong medicine,” and that “it has been employed by the Court sparingly and only as a last resort,” 413 U.S. at 613 , 93 S.Ct. at 2916 , the Court clearly stated the standing limitation: “Embedded in the traditional rules governing constitutional adjudication is the principle that a person to whom a statute may constitutionally be applied will not be heard to challenge that statute on the ground that it may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to others, in other situations not befor | 1 | 5 |
Thornhill v. Alabamagreen2 sentences2000Normally, a litigant only has standing to vindicate his own constitutional rights, and he cannot challenge a statute on the ground that it might be applied unconstitutionally to other persons and in other situations not before the court. [4] Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 797-99 , 104 S.Ct. 2118, 2124-25 , 80 L.Ed.2d 772 (1984) (citing Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 612 , 93 S.Ct. 2908, 2916 , 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973); Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 104 , 60 S.Ct. 736, 745 , 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940)). 2000Normally, a litigant only has standing to vindicate his own constitutional rights, and he cannot challenge a statute on the ground that it might be applied unconstitutionally to other persons and in other situations not before the court. [4] Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 797-99 , 104 S.Ct. 2118, 2124-25 , 80 L.Ed.2d 772 (1984) (citing Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 612 , 93 S.Ct. 2908, 2916 , 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973); Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 104 , 60 S.Ct. 736, 745 , 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940)). | 1 | 3 |
United States v. Hansengreen1 sentence2025In essence, “the overbreadth doctrine instructs a court to hold a statute facially unconstitutional even though it has lawful applications, and even at the behest of someone to whom the statute can be lawfully applied.” United States v. Hansen, 599 U.S. 762, 769 (2023). | 1 | 1 |
Tidewater/Havre De Grace, Inc. v. Mayor of Havre De Gracegreen1 sentence2020See, e.g., Tidewater/Havre de Grace, Inc. v. Mayor & City Council of Havre de Grace, 337 Md. 338, 350 (1995) (deciding pre-enforcement facial vagueness claim as part of declaratory judgment action filed by marinas challenging Havre de Grace’s ordinance requiring marinas to collect and remit docking and storage fees); Village of Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 489, 497 (explaining that “[a] law that does not reach constitutionally protected conduct and therefore satisfies the overbreadth test may nevertheless be challenged on its face as unduly vague, in violation of due process” and reaching meri | 1 | 1 |
Osborne v. Ohiogreen2 sentences1994See Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 111-22 , 110 S.Ct. 1691, 1697-1703 , 109 L.Ed.2d 98 (1990); Massachusetts v. Oakes, 491 U.S. 576, 581-84 , 109 S.Ct. 2633, 2637-39 , 105 L.Ed.2d 493 (1989) (plurality opinion); Ferber, supra, 458 U.S. at 767-74 , 102 S.Ct. at 3359-64 . 1994See Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 111-22 , 110 S.Ct. 1691, 1697-1703 , 109 L.Ed.2d 98 (1990); Massachusetts v. Oakes, 491 U.S. 576, 581-84 , 109 S.Ct. 2633, 2637-39 , 105 L.Ed.2d 493 (1989) (plurality opinion); Ferber, supra, 458 U.S. at 767-74 , 102 S.Ct. at 3359-64 . | 1 | 1 |
New York v. Ferbergreen2 sentences1994See Ferber, supra, 458 U.S. at 768 , 102 S.Ct. at 3360 . 1994See Ferber, supra, 458 U.S. at 768 , 102 S.Ct. at 3360 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent
green
2 sentences2025The “mere fact that one can conceive of some impermissible applications of a statute is not sufficient to render it susceptible to an overbreadth challenge.” Id. at 303 (quoting Members of City Council, 466 U.S. at 800 ). 2000Vincent, 466 U.S. at 798 , 104 S.Ct. 2118 . "[E]ven ... a party whose own conduct may be unprotected" may challenge such laws under the doctrine of overbreadth. | 5 | 1990–2025 |
United States v. Williams
green
1 sentence2025The “mere fact that one can conceive of some impermissible applications of a statute is not sufficient to render it susceptible to an overbreadth challenge.” Id. at 303 (quoting Members of City Council, 466 U.S. at 800 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Eanes v. State
green
2 sentences2000Eanes, 318 Md. at 464-65 , 569 A.2d 604 (citations omitted). 2000Eanes, 318 Md. at 464-65 , 569 A.2d 604 (citations omitted). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Massachusetts v. Oakes
green
2 sentences1994See Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 111-22 , 110 S.Ct. 1691, 1697-1703 , 109 L.Ed.2d 98 (1990); Massachusetts v. Oakes, 491 U.S. 576, 581-84 , 109 S.Ct. 2633, 2637-39 , 105 L.Ed.2d 493 (1989) (plurality opinion); Ferber, supra, 458 U.S. at 767-74 , 102 S.Ct. at 3359-64 . 1994See Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 111-22 , 110 S.Ct. 1691, 1697-1703 , 109 L.Ed.2d 98 (1990); Massachusetts v. Oakes, 491 U.S. 576, 581-84 , 109 S.Ct. 2633, 2637-39 , 105 L.Ed.2d 493 (1989) (plurality opinion); Ferber, supra, 458 U.S. at 767-74 , 102 S.Ct. at 3359-64 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.