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.
9 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bahlgreen2 sentences2019When a condition of community placement concerns material protected under the First Amendment, “a vague standard can cause a chilling effect on the exercise of sensitive First Amendment freedoms.” State v. Bahl, 164 Wn.2d at 753 . 2018In addition to the traditional vagueness standard, for custody conditions “concern[ing] material protected under the First Amendment [of the United States Constitution], a vague standard can cause a chilling effect on the exercise of sensitive First Amendment freedoms.” State v. Bahl, 164 Wn.2d 739, 753 , 193 P.3d 678 (2008). | 2 | 5 |
Grayned v. City of Rockfordgreen2 sentences2014Acknowledging the applicability of Bah!, the State correctly concedes error. "[T]he due process vagueness doctrine under the Fourteenth Amendment and article I, section 3 of the state constitution requires that citizens have fair warning of proscribed conduct." Bah!, 164 Wn.2d at 752 . "[W]hen a statute or other legal standard, such as a condition of community placement, concerns material protected under the First Amendment, a vague standard can cause a chilling effect on the exercise of sensitive First Amendment freedoms." Bah!, 164 Wn.2d at 753 (citing Grayned v. City ofRocliford, 408 U.S. 1 2014Acknowledging the applicability of Bah!, the State correctly concedes error. "[T]he due process vagueness doctrine under the Fourteenth Amendment and article I, section 3 of the state constitution requires that citizens have fair warning of proscribed conduct." Bah!, 164 Wn.2d at 752 . "[W]hen a statute or other legal standard, such as a condition of community placement, concerns material protected under the First Amendment, a vague standard can cause a chilling effect on the exercise of sensitive First Amendment freedoms." Bah!, 164 Wn.2d at 753 (citing Grayned v. City ofRocliford, 408 U.S. 1 | 2 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bahl
green
1 sentence2018In addition to the traditional vagueness standard, for custody conditions “concern[ing] material protected under the First Amendment [of the United States Constitution], a vague standard can cause a chilling effect on the exercise of sensitive First Amendment freedoms.” State v. Bahl, 164 Wn.2d 739, 753 , 193 P.3d 678 (2008). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State Ex Rel. MacRi v. City of Bremerton
green
2 sentences1979Macri v. Bremerton, 8 Wn.2d 93, 113-14 , 111 P.2d 612 (1941). 1979Macri v. Bremerton, 8 Wn.2d 93, 113-14 , 111 P.2d 612 (1941). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.