Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2012 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Rhode Island 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 |
|---|---|---|
DiRaimo v. City of Providencegreen2 sentences2012The over-breadth doctrine “generally applies in the context of First Amendment freedoms and is intended to prevent the imposition of criminal penalties for the exercise of one’s constitutional rights.” Russell, 890 A.2d at 459 ; see also Massachusetts v. Oakes, 491 U.S. 576, 581 , 109 S.Ct. 2633 , 105 L.Ed.2d 493 (1989) (“The doctrine is predicated on the danger that an overly broad statute, if left in place, may cause persons whose expression is constitutionally protected to refrain from exercising them rights for fear of criminal sanctions.”); DiRaimo v. City of Providence, 714 A.2d 554, 565 2006DiRaimo v. City of Providence, 714 A.2d 554, 565 (R.I.1998). | 2 | 2 |
New York v. Ferbergreen2 sentences2012It follows that “the mere fact that one can conceive of some impermissible applications of a statute is not sufficient to render it susceptible to an overbreadth challenge.” Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. at 800 , 104 S.Ct. 2118 (emphasis added); see also New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 772 , 102 S.Ct. 3348 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982). 2012It follows that “the mere fact that one can conceive of some impermissible applications of a statute is not sufficient to render it susceptible to an overbreadth challenge.” Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. at 800 , 104 S.Ct. 2118 (emphasis added); see also New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 772 , 102 S.Ct. 3348 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982). | 2 | 2 |
Broadrick v. Oklahomagreen2 sentences2012For that reason, it is important to remain mindful of the principle that “the over-breadth of a statute must not only be real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 615 , 93 S.Ct. 2908 (emphasis added); see also New York State Club Association, Inc., 487 U.S. at 14, 108 S.Ct. 2225 ; Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. at 799 , 104 S.Ct. 2118 (“In order to decide whether the overbreadth exception is applicable in a particular case, we have weighted the likelihood that the statute’s very existence will inhibit free expression.” 2012For that reason, it is important to remain mindful of the principle that “the over-breadth of a statute must not only be real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 615 , 93 S.Ct. 2908 (emphasis added); see also New York State Club Association, Inc., 487 U.S. at 14, 108 S.Ct. 2225 ; Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. at 799 , 104 S.Ct. 2118 (“In order to decide whether the overbreadth exception is applicable in a particular case, we have weighted the likelihood that the statute’s very existence will inhibit free expression.” | 1 | 6 |
Robert T. Magill v. Dennis M. Lynchgreen2 sentences2010Cranston Teachers Alliance Local No. 1704 AFT , 495 A.2d at 235 (citing Magill v. Lynch , 560 F.2d 22 , 29 (1 st Cir. 1977), cert. denied , 434 U.S. 1063 (1978). 1985Magill v. Lynch, 560 F.2d 22, 29 (1st Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1063 , 98 S.Ct. 1236 , 55 L.Ed.2d 763 (1978). | 1 | 2 |
Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environmentgreen2 sentences2010Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Clearwater , 351 F.3d 1112 , 1116 (11 th Cir. 2003) (citing Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Env't , 444 U.S. 620 , 634 (1980). 2010See Ferber , 458 U.S. at 768 -69 (quoting Village *Page 4 of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment , 444 U.S. 620 , 634 (1980); Gooding v. Wilson , 405 U.S. 518 , 521 (1972)). | 1 | 2 |
Cranston Teachers Alliance Local No. 1704 AFT v. Mielegreen2 sentences2010The overbreadth doctrine "arises when a statutory enactment is so broad in its sweep that it is capable of reaching constitutionally protected conduct." State v. Russell , 890 A.2d 453 , 459 (2006) (citing Cranston Teachers Alliance Local No. 1704 AFT v. Miele , 495 A.2d 233 , 235 (R.I. 1985). 2010Cranston Teachers Alliance Local No. 1704 AFT , 495 A.2d at 235 (citing Magill v. Lynch , 560 F.2d 22 , 29 (1 st Cir. 1977), cert. denied , 434 U.S. 1063 (1978). | 1 | 2 |
cluster 2144green2 sentences2012Pursuant to the overbreadth doctrine, a court must invalidate “laws that inhibit the exercise of First Amendment rights if the impermissible applications of the law are substantial when judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 52 , 119 S.Ct. 1849 , 144 L.Ed.2d 67 (1999) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Stevens, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 1587 , 176 L.Ed.2d 435 *1238 (2010); URI Student Senate, 631 F.3d at 12 ; Russell, 890 A.2d at 459 . 2012Pursuant to the overbreadth doctrine, a court must invalidate “laws that inhibit the exercise of First Amendment rights if the impermissible applications of the law are substantial when judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 52 , 119 S.Ct. 1849 , 144 L.Ed.2d 67 (1999) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Stevens, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 1587 , 176 L.Ed.2d 435 *1238 (2010); URI Student Senate, 631 F.3d at 12 ; Russell, 890 A.2d at 459 . | 1 | 1 |
Massachusetts v. Oakesgreen2 sentences2012The over-breadth doctrine “generally applies in the context of First Amendment freedoms and is intended to prevent the imposition of criminal penalties for the exercise of one’s constitutional rights.” Russell, 890 A.2d at 459 ; see also Massachusetts v. Oakes, 491 U.S. 576, 581 , 109 S.Ct. 2633 , 105 L.Ed.2d 493 (1989) (“The doctrine is predicated on the danger that an overly broad statute, if left in place, may cause persons whose expression is constitutionally protected to refrain from exercising them rights for fear of criminal sanctions.”); DiRaimo v. City of Providence, 714 A.2d 554, 565 2012The over-breadth doctrine “generally applies in the context of First Amendment freedoms and is intended to prevent the imposition of criminal penalties for the exercise of one’s constitutional rights.” Russell, 890 A.2d at 459 ; see also Massachusetts v. Oakes, 491 U.S. 576, 581 , 109 S.Ct. 2633 , 105 L.Ed.2d 493 (1989) (“The doctrine is predicated on the danger that an overly broad statute, if left in place, may cause persons whose expression is constitutionally protected to refrain from exercising them rights for fear of criminal sanctions.”); DiRaimo v. City of Providence, 714 A.2d 554, 565 | 1 | 1 |
New York State Club Assn., Inc. v. City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2012For that reason, it is important to remain mindful of the principle that “the over-breadth of a statute must not only be real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 615 , 93 S.Ct. 2908 (emphasis added); see also New York State Club Association, Inc., 487 U.S. at 14, 108 S.Ct. 2225 ; Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. at 799 , 104 S.Ct. 2118 (“In order to decide whether the overbreadth exception is applicable in a particular case, we have weighted the likelihood that the statute’s very existence will inhibit free expression.” | 1 | 1 |
Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Clearwatergreen2 sentences2010Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Clearwater , 351 F.3d 1112 , 1116 (11 th Cir. 2003) (citing Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Env't , 444 U.S. 620 , 634 (1980). 2010Advantage Media, LLC , 451 F.3d at 800 -02 ; see also Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc , 351 F.3d at 1117 ; Tanner Advertising Group, L.L.C. v. Fayette County , 451 F.3d 777 , 791 (11 th Cir. 2006) (In both cases, the 11 th Circuit found that the plaintiff, an outdoor advertising company, lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of municipal code provisions which had not been factors in the denial of its permit applications.) Sections 24-10.1-3 (5), VI(C)(i)A and VI(C)(6) do not distinguish between on-premise and off-premise signs nor make any content-based restrictions. | 1 | 1 |
Cummings v. Godingreen2 sentences1985We applied the Broadrick test to a provision in a city home-rule charter in Cummings v. Godin, 119 R.I. 325, 340 , 377 A.2d 1071, 1078 (1977) and determined that the test seemed somewhat circular since it required a consideration of the merits of the overbreadth claim prior to the determination of the party’s standing. 1985We applied the Broadrick test to a provision in a city home-rule charter in Cummings v. Godin, 119 R.I. 325, 340 , 377 A.2d 1071, 1078 (1977) and determined that the test seemed somewhat circular since it required a consideration of the merits of the overbreadth claim prior to the determination of the party’s standing. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Rhode Island. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent
green
2 sentences2012For that reason, it is important to remain mindful of the principle that “the over-breadth of a statute must not only be real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 615 , 93 S.Ct. 2908 (emphasis added); see also New York State Club Association, Inc., 487 U.S. at 14, 108 S.Ct. 2225 ; Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. at 799 , 104 S.Ct. 2118 (“In order to decide whether the overbreadth exception is applicable in a particular case, we have weighted the likelihood that the statute’s very existence will inhibit free expression.” 2012For that reason, it is important to remain mindful of the principle that “the over-breadth of a statute must not only be real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 615 , 93 S.Ct. 2908 (emphasis added); see also New York State Club Association, Inc., 487 U.S. at 14, 108 S.Ct. 2225 ; Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. at 799 , 104 S.Ct. 2118 (“In order to decide whether the overbreadth exception is applicable in a particular case, we have weighted the likelihood that the statute’s very existence will inhibit free expression.” | 3 | 1996–2012 |
State v. Russell
green
2 sentences2012Pursuant to the overbreadth doctrine, a court must invalidate “laws that inhibit the exercise of First Amendment rights if the impermissible applications of the law are substantial when judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 52 , 119 S.Ct. 1849 , 144 L.Ed.2d 67 (1999) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Stevens, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 1587 , 176 L.Ed.2d 435 *1238 (2010); URI Student Senate, 631 F.3d at 12 ; Russell, 890 A.2d at 459 . 2010The overbreadth doctrine "arises when a statutory enactment is so broad in its sweep that it is capable of reaching constitutionally protected conduct." State v. Russell , 890 A.2d 453 , 459 (2006) (citing Cranston Teachers Alliance Local No. 1704 AFT v. Miele , 495 A.2d 233 , 235 (R.I. 1985). | 2 | 2010–2012 |
City of Chicago v. Morales
green
2 sentences2012Pursuant to the overbreadth doctrine, a court must invalidate “laws that inhibit the exercise of First Amendment rights if the impermissible applications of the law are substantial when judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 52 , 119 S.Ct. 1849 , 144 L.Ed.2d 67 (1999) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Stevens, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 1587 , 176 L.Ed.2d 435 *1238 (2010); URI Student Senate, 631 F.3d at 12 ; Russell, 890 A.2d at 459 . 2012Pursuant to the overbreadth doctrine, a court must invalidate “laws that inhibit the exercise of First Amendment rights if the impermissible applications of the law are substantial when judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 52 , 119 S.Ct. 1849 , 144 L.Ed.2d 67 (1999) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Stevens, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 1587 , 176 L.Ed.2d 435 *1238 (2010); URI Student Senate, 631 F.3d at 12 ; Russell, 890 A.2d at 459 . | 2 | 2006–2012 |
U-Anchor Advertising, Inc. v. Burt
green
2 sentences2010Cranston Teachers Alliance Local No. 1704 AFT , 495 A.2d at 235 (citing Magill v. Lynch , 560 F.2d 22 , 29 (1 st Cir. 1977), cert. denied , 434 U.S. 1063 (1978). 1985Magill v. Lynch, 560 F.2d 22, 29 (1st Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1063 , 98 S.Ct. 1236 , 55 L.Ed.2d 763 (1978). | 2 | 1985–2010 |
Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.
green
2 sentences1992Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 494 . 1992Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 494 . | 2 | 1992–1992 |
URI Student Senate v. Town of Narragansett
green
1 sentence2012Pursuant to the overbreadth doctrine, a court must invalidate “laws that inhibit the exercise of First Amendment rights if the impermissible applications of the law are substantial when judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 52 , 119 S.Ct. 1849 , 144 L.Ed.2d 67 (1999) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Stevens, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 1587 , 176 L.Ed.2d 435 *1238 (2010); URI Student Senate, 631 F.3d at 12 ; Russell, 890 A.2d at 459 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Tanner Advertising Group v. Fayette County, GA
green
1 sentence2010Advantage Media, LLC , 451 F.3d at 800 -02 ; see also Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc , 351 F.3d at 1117 ; Tanner Advertising Group, L.L.C. v. Fayette County , 451 F.3d 777 , 791 (11 th Cir. 2006) (In both cases, the 11 th Circuit found that the plaintiff, an outdoor advertising company, lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of municipal code provisions which had not been factors in the denial of its permit applications.) Sections 24-10.1-3 (5), VI(C)(i)A and VI(C)(6) do not distinguish between on-premise and off-premise signs nor make any content-based restrictions. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
CAMP Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. City of Atlanta
green
2 sentences2010CAMP Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. City of Atlanta , 451 F.3d 1257 , 1270 (2006) (citing Joseph H. 2010Advantage Media, LLC , 451 F.3d at 800 -02 ; see also Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc , 351 F.3d at 1117 ; Tanner Advertising Group, L.L.C. v. Fayette County , 451 F.3d 777 , 791 (11 th Cir. 2006) (In both cases, the 11 th Circuit found that the plaintiff, an outdoor advertising company, lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of municipal code provisions which had not been factors in the denial of its permit applications.) Sections 24-10.1-3 (5), VI(C)(i)A and VI(C)(6) do not distinguish between on-premise and off-premise signs nor make any content-based restrictions. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
United States v. Williams
green
2 sentences2010The overbreadth doctrine allows a statute to be challenged if, in proscribing unprotected speech, it also proscribes "a substantial amount of protected speech." United States v. Williams , 553 U.S. ___ , 6 (2008), 128 S.Ct. 1830 (emphasis added); see also New York v. Ferber , 458 U.S. 747 , 767 (1982); Broadrick v. Oklahoma , 413 U.S. 601 , 610 (1973); United States v. Raines , 362 U.S. 17 , 21 (1960); Carmichael v. Southern Coal Coke Co. , 301 U.S. 495 , 513 (1937); Yazoo M.V.R. 2010The overbreadth doctrine allows a statute to be challenged if, in proscribing unprotected speech, it also proscribes "a substantial amount of protected speech." United States v. Williams , 553 U.S. ___ , 6 (2008), 128 S.Ct. 1830 (emphasis added); see also New York v. Ferber , 458 U.S. 747 , 767 (1982); Broadrick v. Oklahoma , 413 U.S. 601 , 610 (1973); United States v. Raines , 362 U.S. 17 , 21 (1960); Carmichael v. Southern Coal Coke Co. , 301 U.S. 495 , 513 (1937); Yazoo M.V.R. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad v. Jackson Vinegar Co.
green
1 sentence2010Co. v. Jackson Vinegar Co. , 226 U.S. 217 , 219-20 (1912). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co.
green
2 sentences2010The overbreadth doctrine allows a statute to be challenged if, in proscribing unprotected speech, it also proscribes "a substantial amount of protected speech." United States v. Williams , 553 U.S. ___ , 6 (2008), 128 S.Ct. 1830 (emphasis added); see also New York v. Ferber , 458 U.S. 747 , 767 (1982); Broadrick v. Oklahoma , 413 U.S. 601 , 610 (1973); United States v. Raines , 362 U.S. 17 , 21 (1960); Carmichael v. Southern Coal Coke Co. , 301 U.S. 495 , 513 (1937); Yazoo M.V.R. 2010The overbreadth doctrine allows a statute to be challenged if, in proscribing unprotected speech, it also proscribes "a substantial amount of protected speech." United States v. Williams , 553 U.S. ___ , 6 (2008), 128 S.Ct. 1830 (emphasis added); see also New York v. Ferber , 458 U.S. 747 , 767 (1982); Broadrick v. Oklahoma , 413 U.S. 601 , 610 (1973); United States v. Raines , 362 U.S. 17 , 21 (1960); Carmichael v. Southern Coal Coke Co. , 301 U.S. 495 , 513 (1937); Yazoo M.V.R. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
United States v. James Griggs Raines
green
2 sentences2010The overbreadth doctrine allows a statute to be challenged if, in proscribing unprotected speech, it also proscribes "a substantial amount of protected speech." United States v. Williams , 553 U.S. ___ , 6 (2008), 128 S.Ct. 1830 (emphasis added); see also New York v. Ferber , 458 U.S. 747 , 767 (1982); Broadrick v. Oklahoma , 413 U.S. 601 , 610 (1973); United States v. Raines , 362 U.S. 17 , 21 (1960); Carmichael v. Southern Coal Coke Co. , 301 U.S. 495 , 513 (1937); Yazoo M.V.R. 2010The overbreadth doctrine allows a statute to be challenged if, in proscribing unprotected speech, it also proscribes "a substantial amount of protected speech." United States v. Williams , 553 U.S. ___ , 6 (2008), 128 S.Ct. 1830 (emphasis added); see also New York v. Ferber , 458 U.S. 747 , 767 (1982); Broadrick v. Oklahoma , 413 U.S. 601 , 610 (1973); United States v. Raines , 362 U.S. 17 , 21 (1960); Carmichael v. Southern Coal Coke Co. , 301 U.S. 495 , 513 (1937); Yazoo M.V.R. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Gooding v. Wilson
green
1 sentence2010See Ferber , 458 U.S. at 768 -69 (quoting Village *Page 4 of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment , 444 U.S. 620 , 634 (1980); Gooding v. Wilson , 405 U.S. 518 , 521 (1972)). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State Ex Rel. Town of Westerly v. Bradley
green
1 sentence2006II Vagueness A penal statute is void for vagueness in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause if it “fail[s] to provide the kind of notice that will enable ordinary people to understand what conduct it prohibits * * * [or] au-thorizefs] and even encourage[s] arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” Bradley, 877 A.2d at 605 (quoting City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 56 , 119 S.Ct. 1849 , 144 L.Ed.2d 67 (1999)). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Granaderos v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
green
1 sentence1985Magill v. Lynch, 560 F.2d 22, 29 (1st Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1063 , 98 S.Ct. 1236 , 55 L.Ed.2d 763 (1978). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.