8 North Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina 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 sentences2026Thus, “ ‘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.’ ” Beckles v. United States, 580 U.S. 256, 262 (2017) (quoting Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 (1983)). 2018Void for Vagueness "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." Kolender v. Lawson , 461 U.S. 352 , 357, 103 S.Ct. 1855 , 1858, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 , 909 (1983) (citations omitted). | 3 | 4 |
Beckles v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2026Thus, “ ‘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.’ ” Beckles v. United States, 580 U.S. 256, 262 (2017) (quoting Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 (1983)). | 1 | 1 |
McKeiver v. Pennsylvaniagreen2 sentences2016See In re Burrus, 275 N.C. 517 , 532, 169 S.E.2d 879 , 888 (1969), aff'd sub nom., McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 , 91 S.Ct. 1976 , 29 L.Ed.2d 647 (1971). 2016See In re Burrus, 275 N.C. 517 , 532, 169 S.E.2d 879 , 888 (1969), aff'd sub nom., McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 , 91 S.Ct. 1976 , 29 L.Ed.2d 647 (1971). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Burrusgreen2 sentences2016See In re Burrus, 275 N.C. 517 , 532, 169 S.E.2d 879 , 888 (1969), aff'd sub nom., McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 , 91 S.Ct. 1976 , 29 L.Ed.2d 647 (1971). 2016See In re Burrus, 275 N.C. 517 , 532, 169 S.E.2d 879 , 888 (1969), aff'd sub nom., McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 , 91 S.Ct. 1976 , 29 L.Ed.2d 647 (1971). | 1 | 1 |
Skilling v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2014The void-for-vagueness doctrine embraces these requirements.” Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358, 402 , 177 L.Ed. 2d 619, 656 (2010) (citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted). 2014The void-for-vagueness doctrine embraces these requirements.” Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358, 402 , 177 L.Ed. 2d 619, 656 (2010) (citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Greengreen2 sentences2014The North Carolina Supreme Court has “expressed an almost identical standard.” State v. Green, 348 N.C. 588, 597 , 502 S.E.2d 819, 824 (1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1111 , 142 L.Ed. 2d 783 (1999). 2014The North Carolina Supreme Court has “expressed an almost identical standard.” State v. Green, 348 N.C. 588, 597 , 502 S.E.2d 819, 824 (1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1111 , 142 L.Ed. 2d 783 (1999). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cumbergreen2 sentences2009"Appellate courts will not ordinarily pass upon a constitutional question unless it affirmatively appears that such question was raised and passed upon in the trial court." State v. Cumber, 280 N.C. 127, 131-32 , 185 S.E.2d 141, 144 (1971). 2009"Appellate courts will not ordinarily pass upon a constitutional question unless it affirmatively appears that such question was raised and passed upon in the trial court." State v. Cumber, 280 N.C. 127, 131-32 , 185 S.E.2d 141, 144 (1971). | 1 | 1 |
Grayned v. City of Rockfordgreen2 sentences2005The void for vagueness test is whether the statute in question gives a “person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly.” Elam, 302 N.C. at 161-62 , 273 S.E.2d at 664 -65 (quoting Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 , 33 L. 2005The void for vagueness test is whether the statute in question gives a “person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly.” Elam, 302 N.C. at 161-62 , 273 S.E.2d at 664 -65 (quoting Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 , 33 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Mello
green
1 sentence2026“When evaluating whether a person of ordinary intelligence could determine what conduct is prohibited, ‘ “[o]nly a reasonable degree of certainty is necessary, mathematical precision is not required.” ’ ” Mello, 200 N.C. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Green v. North Carolina
green
1 sentence2014The North Carolina Supreme Court has “expressed an almost identical standard.” State v. Green, 348 N.C. 588, 597 , 502 S.E.2d 819, 824 (1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1111 , 142 L.Ed. 2d 783 (1999). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Sanford v. Gillis
green
1 sentence2014The North Carolina Supreme Court has “expressed an almost identical standard.” State v. Green, 348 N.C. 588, 597 , 502 S.E.2d 819, 824 (1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1111 , 142 L.Ed. 2d 783 (1999). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Elam
green
2 sentences2005The void for vagueness test is whether the statute in question gives a “person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly.” Elam, 302 N.C. at 161-62 , 273 S.E.2d at 664 -65 (quoting Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 , 33 L. 2005The void for vagueness test is whether the statute in question gives a “person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly.” Elam, 302 N.C. at 161-62 , 273 S.E.2d at 664 -65 (quoting Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 , 33 L. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.