11 Oklahoma opinions name it 3 courts 1994–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oklahoma 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kolender v. Lawsongreen2 sentences2018"As generally stated, the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement." Weeks v. State , 2015 OK CR 16 , ¶ 18, 362 P.3d 650 , 655 (quoting Kolender v. Lawson , 461 U.S. 352 , 357, 103 S.Ct. 1855 , 1858, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983) ). 2018"As generally stated, the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement." Weeks v. State , 2015 OK CR 16 , ¶ 18, 362 P.3d 650 , 655 (quoting Kolender v. Lawson , 461 U.S. 352 , 357, 103 S.Ct. 1855 , 1858, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983) ). | 1 | 10 |
Edmondson v. Pearcegreen2 sentences2011See also Edmondson v. Pearce, 2004 OK 23, 48 , 91 P.3d 605, 629 (the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires a statute to define the limits on the constitutional right with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary discriminatory enforcement.) 97 . 2011See also Edmondson v. Pearce, 2004 OK 23, 48 , 91 P.3d 605, 629 (the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires a statute to define the limits on the constitutional right with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary discriminatory enforcement.) 97 . | 1 | 2 |
WEEKS v. STATEgreen2 sentences2018"As generally stated, the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement." Weeks v. State , 2015 OK CR 16 , ¶ 18, 362 P.3d 650 , 655 (quoting Kolender v. Lawson , 461 U.S. 352 , 357, 103 S.Ct. 1855 , 1858, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983) ). 2018"As generally stated, the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement." Weeks v. State , 2015 OK CR 16 , ¶ 18, 362 P.3d 650 , 655 (quoting Kolender v. Lawson , 461 U.S. 352 , 357, 103 S.Ct. 1855 , 1858, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983) ). | 1 | 1 |
Hayes v. Municipal Court of Oklahoma Citygreen2 sentences2007Hayes, 1971 OK CR 274, ¶ 6 , 487 P.2d at 976 ("A 'statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law.'") (quoting Connally v. General Constr. 2007Hayes, 1971 OK CR 274, ¶ 6 , 487 P.2d at 976 ("A 'statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law.'") (quoting Connally v. General Constr. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Saundersgreen2 sentences2007See Wilkins v. State, 1999 OK CR 27, ¶ 8 , 985 P.2d 184, 186 ("As generally stated, the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.") (quoting Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 , 103 S.Ct. 1855, 1858 , 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983)); State v. Saunders, 1994 OK CR 76, ¶ 5 , 886 P.2d 496, 497 (same). . 2007See Wilkins v. State, 1999 OK CR 27, ¶ 8 , 985 P.2d 184, 186 ("As generally stated, the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.") (quoting Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 , 103 S.Ct. 1855, 1858 , 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983)); State v. Saunders, 1994 OK CR 76, ¶ 5 , 886 P.2d 496, 497 (same). . | 1 | 1 |
Wilkins v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See Wilkins v. State, 1999 OK CR 27, ¶ 8 , 985 P.2d 184, 186 ("As generally stated, the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.") (quoting Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 , 103 S.Ct. 1855, 1858 , 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983)); State v. Saunders, 1994 OK CR 76, ¶ 5 , 886 P.2d 496, 497 (same). . 2007See Wilkins v. State, 1999 OK CR 27, ¶ 8 , 985 P.2d 184, 186 ("As generally stated, the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.") (quoting Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 , 103 S.Ct. 1855, 1858 , 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983)); State v. Saunders, 1994 OK CR 76, ¶ 5 , 886 P.2d 496, 497 (same). . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Broadrick v. Oklahoma
green
2 sentences2004As discussed below, the Act does not reach a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct and is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. ¶ 48 “As generally stated, the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary discriminatory enforcement.” Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 , 103 S.Ct. 1855 , 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983); Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 , 46 S.Ct. 126 , 70 L.Ed. 322 (192 2004As discussed below, the Act does not reach a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct and is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. ¶ 48 “As generally stated, the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary discriminatory enforcement.” Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 , 103 S.Ct. 1855 , 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983); Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 , 46 S.Ct. 126 , 70 L.Ed. 322 (192 | 2 | 1994–2004 |
Flandermeyer v. Bonner
green
2 sentences2011Flandermeyer v. Bonner, 2006 OK 87, 11 , 152 P.3d 195, 199 ; State ex rel. 2011Flandermeyer v. Bonner, 2006 OK 87, 11 , 152 P.3d 195, 199 ; State ex rel. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Connally v. General Construction Co.
green
2 sentences2004As discussed below, the Act does not reach a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct and is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. ¶ 48 “As generally stated, the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary discriminatory enforcement.” Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 , 103 S.Ct. 1855 , 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983); Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 , 46 S.Ct. 126 , 70 L.Ed. 322 (192 2004As discussed below, the Act does not reach a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct and is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. ¶ 48 “As generally stated, the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary discriminatory enforcement.” Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 , 103 S.Ct. 1855 , 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983); Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 , 46 S.Ct. 126 , 70 L.Ed. 322 (192 | 1 | 2004–2004 |
In Re Initiative Petition No. 341, State Question No. 627
green
2 sentences2004This Court has ruled that “[a] prerequisite to an overbreadth challenge is that the law itself will create a ‘realistic danger’ that first amendment protections will be compromised.” In re Initiative Petition No. 341, 1990 OK 53 , 796 P.2d 267, 269 . 2004This Court has ruled that “[a] prerequisite to an overbreadth challenge is that the law itself will create a ‘realistic danger’ that first amendment protections will be compromised.” In re Initiative Petition No. 341, 1990 OK 53 , 796 P.2d 267, 269 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Smith v. Goguen
green
2 sentences2004As discussed below, the Act does not reach a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct and is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. ¶ 48 “As generally stated, the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary discriminatory enforcement.” Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 , 103 S.Ct. 1855 , 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983); Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 , 46 S.Ct. 126 , 70 L.Ed. 322 (192 2004As discussed below, the Act does not reach a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct and is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. ¶ 48 “As generally stated, the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary discriminatory enforcement.” Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 , 103 S.Ct. 1855 , 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983); Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 , 46 S.Ct. 126 , 70 L.Ed. 322 (192 | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.