void-for-vagueness doctrine in Alaska

7 Alaska opinions name it 1 courts 1969–2024 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Alaska 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.

Followed or applied (10)

Case	Followed	Cited
Stock v. Stategreen alaska · 1974 · cited in 3 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1977–1978 2 sentences 1978He also contends that they are unconstitutionally overbroad, that is, that they prohibit speech which is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as well as speech which may be unprotected. 2 In Stock v. State, 526 P.2d 3 (Alaska 1974) we discussed the void for vagueness doctrine. 1978We discussed the void-for-vagueness doctrine, as well as the authorities on which it rests, at some length in our opinion in Marks v. City of Anchorage, supra. See also Papachris-tou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 162 , 31 L.Ed.2d 110, 115 (1972); Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 382 U.S. 87, 90 , 86 S.Ct. 211, 213 , 15 L.Ed.2d 176, 179 (1965); State v. Marathon Oil Co., 528 P.2d 293, 297 (Alaska 1974); Stock v. State, 526 P.2d 3, 8 (Alaska 1974); Poole v. State, 524 P.2d 286 , 289 n.15 (Alaska 1974).	1	3
State v. Martingreen alaska · 1975 · cited in 2 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1978–1978 2 sentences 1978Cf. Anderson v. State, 562 P.2d 351 (Alaska 1977); State v. Martin, 532 P.2d 316 (Alaska 1975). 1978Stock v. State, supra at 8; State v. Martin, supra at 324 (concurring opinion); see, e. g., Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 97-98 , 60 S.Ct. 736 , 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940). (footnotes omitted) First amendment rights are not involved in this case, so that aspect of the void-for-vagueness doctrine will not be considered.	1	2
Thornhill v. Alabamagreen scotus · 1940 · cited in 2 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1972–1978 2 sentences 1978Stock v. State, supra at 8; State v. Martin, supra at 324 (concurring opinion); see, e. g., Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 97-98 , 60 S.Ct. 736 , 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940). (footnotes omitted) First amendment rights are not involved in this case, so that aspect of the void-for-vagueness doctrine will not be considered. 1978Stock v. State, supra at 8; State v. Martin, supra at 324 (concurring opinion); see, e. g., Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 97-98 , 60 S.Ct. 736 , 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940). (footnotes omitted) First amendment rights are not involved in this case, so that aspect of the void-for-vagueness doctrine will not be considered.	1	2
Papachristou v. City of Jacksonvillegreen scotus · 1972 · cited in 2 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1972–1978 2 sentences 1978We discussed the void-for-vagueness doctrine, as well as the authorities on which it rests, at some length in our opinion in Marks v. City of Anchorage, supra. See also Papachris-tou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 162 , 31 L.Ed.2d 110, 115 (1972); Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 382 U.S. 87, 90 , 86 S.Ct. 211, 213 , 15 L.Ed.2d 176, 179 (1965); State v. Marathon Oil Co., 528 P.2d 293, 297 (Alaska 1974); Stock v. State, 526 P.2d 3, 8 (Alaska 1974); Poole v. State, 524 P.2d 286 , 289 n.15 (Alaska 1974). 1978We discussed the void-for-vagueness doctrine, as well as the authorities on which it rests, at some length in our opinion in Marks v. City of Anchorage, supra. See also Papachris-tou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 162 , 31 L.Ed.2d 110, 115 (1972); Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 382 U.S. 87, 90 , 86 S.Ct. 211, 213 , 15 L.Ed.2d 176, 179 (1965); State v. Marathon Oil Co., 528 P.2d 293, 297 (Alaska 1974); Stock v. State, 526 P.2d 3, 8 (Alaska 1974); Poole v. State, 524 P.2d 286 , 289 n.15 (Alaska 1974).	1	2
Grayned v. City of Rockfordgreen scotus · 1972 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024The 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.” 21 19 Cf. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 387 P.3d 25, 35-36 (Alaska 2016) (holding that “commonsense interpretation” of existing regulation does not require new regulation). 20 Because we hold the order was valid, we need not address the State’s argument that McLaughlin was obligated to follow the order regardless	1	1
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. State, Department of Revenuegreen alaska · 2016 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024The 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.” 21 19 Cf. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 387 P.3d 25, 35-36 (Alaska 2016) (holding that “commonsense interpretation” of existing regulation does not require new regulation). 20 Because we hold the order was valid, we need not address the State’s argument that McLaughlin was obligated to follow the order regardless	1	1
Kolender v. Lawsongreen scotus · 1983 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024The 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.” 21 19 Cf. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 387 P.3d 25, 35-36 (Alaska 2016) (holding that “commonsense interpretation” of existing regulation does not require new regulation). 20 Because we hold the order was valid, we need not address the State’s argument that McLaughlin was obligated to follow the order regardless	1	1
Treacy v. Municipality of Anchoragegreen alaska · 2004 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024The 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.” 21 19 Cf. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 387 P.3d 25, 35-36 (Alaska 2016) (holding that “commonsense interpretation” of existing regulation does not require new regulation). 20 Because we hold the order was valid, we need not address the State’s argument that McLaughlin was obligated to follow the order regardless	1	1
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birminghamgreen scotus · 1966 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1978–1978 2 sentences 1978We discussed the void-for-vagueness doctrine, as well as the authorities on which it rests, at some length in our opinion in Marks v. City of Anchorage, supra. See also Papachris-tou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 162 , 31 L.Ed.2d 110, 115 (1972); Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 382 U.S. 87, 90 , 86 S.Ct. 211, 213 , 15 L.Ed.2d 176, 179 (1965); State v. Marathon Oil Co., 528 P.2d 293, 297 (Alaska 1974); Stock v. State, 526 P.2d 3, 8 (Alaska 1974); Poole v. State, 524 P.2d 286 , 289 n.15 (Alaska 1974). 1978We discussed the void-for-vagueness doctrine, as well as the authorities on which it rests, at some length in our opinion in Marks v. City of Anchorage, supra. See also Papachris-tou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 162 , 31 L.Ed.2d 110, 115 (1972); Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 382 U.S. 87, 90 , 86 S.Ct. 211, 213 , 15 L.Ed.2d 176, 179 (1965); State v. Marathon Oil Co., 528 P.2d 293, 297 (Alaska 1974); Stock v. State, 526 P.2d 3, 8 (Alaska 1974); Poole v. State, 524 P.2d 286 , 289 n.15 (Alaska 1974).	1	1
State v. Marathon Oil Companygreen alaska · 1974 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1978–1978 1 sentence 1978We discussed the void-for-vagueness doctrine, as well as the authorities on which it rests, at some length in our opinion in Marks v. City of Anchorage, supra. See also Papachris-tou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 162 , 31 L.Ed.2d 110, 115 (1972); Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 382 U.S. 87, 90 , 86 S.Ct. 211, 213 , 15 L.Ed.2d 176, 179 (1965); State v. Marathon Oil Co., 528 P.2d 293, 297 (Alaska 1974); Stock v. State, 526 P.2d 3, 8 (Alaska 1974); Poole v. State, 524 P.2d 286 , 289 n.15 (Alaska 1974).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

Case	Cited	Years
Larson v. Cooper green alaska · 2005 1 sentence 2024The 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.” 21 19 Cf. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 387 P.3d 25, 35-36 (Alaska 2016) (holding that “commonsense interpretation” of existing regulation does not require new regulation). 20 Because we hold the order was valid, we need not address the State’s argument that McLaughlin was obligated to follow the order regardless	1	2024–2024
Poole v. State green alaska · 1974 1 sentence 1978We discussed the void-for-vagueness doctrine, as well as the authorities on which it rests, at some length in our opinion in Marks v. City of Anchorage, supra. See also Papachris-tou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 162 , 31 L.Ed.2d 110, 115 (1972); Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 382 U.S. 87, 90 , 86 S.Ct. 211, 213 , 15 L.Ed.2d 176, 179 (1965); State v. Marathon Oil Co., 528 P.2d 293, 297 (Alaska 1974); Stock v. State, 526 P.2d 3, 8 (Alaska 1974); Poole v. State, 524 P.2d 286 , 289 n.15 (Alaska 1974).	1	1978–1978
Anderson v. State green alaska · 1977 1 sentence 1978Cf. Anderson v. State, 562 P.2d 351 (Alaska 1977); State v. Martin, 532 P.2d 316 (Alaska 1975).	1	1978–1978
Marks v. City of Anchorage green alaska · 1972 1 sentence 1978We discussed the void-for-vagueness doctrine, as well as the authorities on which it rests, at some length in our opinion in Marks v. City of Anchorage, supra. See also Papachris-tou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 162 , 31 L.Ed.2d 110, 115 (1972); Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 382 U.S. 87, 90 , 86 S.Ct. 211, 213 , 15 L.Ed.2d 176, 179 (1965); State v. Marathon Oil Co., 528 P.2d 293, 297 (Alaska 1974); Stock v. State, 526 P.2d 3, 8 (Alaska 1974); Poole v. State, 524 P.2d 286 , 289 n.15 (Alaska 1974).	1	1978–1978
Smith v. Goguen green scotus · 1974 2 sentences 1977The basic outline of the void-for-vagueness doctrine was recently simply stated by the United States Supreme Court in Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 572-573 , 94 S.Ct. 1242, 1247 , 39 L.Ed.2d 605 (1974): The doctrine incorporates notions of fair notice or warning. 1977The basic outline of the void-for-vagueness doctrine was recently simply stated by the United States Supreme Court in Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 572-573 , 94 S.Ct. 1242, 1247 , 39 L.Ed.2d 605 (1974): The doctrine incorporates notions of fair notice or warning.	1	1977–1977
Herndon v. Lowry green scotus · 1937 2 sentences 1972Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 , 60 S.Ct. 736 , 84 L.Ed. 1093 ; Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242 , 57 S.Ct. 732 , 81 L.Ed. 1066 . 1972Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 , 60 S.Ct. 736 , 84 L.Ed. 1093 ; Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242 , 57 S.Ct. 732 , 81 L.Ed. 1066 .	1	1972–1972
United States v. Harriss green scotus · 1954 2 sentences 1972The most comprehensive vagueness case, however, is Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 , 92 S.Ct. 839 , 31 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972), where Justice Douglas, writing for a unanimous Court, struck a Jacksonville vagrancy ordinance. [26] The Court explicitly recognized both rationales for the void-for-vagueness doctrine: This ordinance is void-for-vagueness, both in the sense that it `fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute,' United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617 , 74 S.Ct. 808, 812 , 98 L.Ed. 989 , and because it 1972The most comprehensive vagueness case, however, is Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 , 92 S.Ct. 839 , 31 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972), where Justice Douglas, writing for a unanimous Court, struck a Jacksonville vagrancy ordinance. [26] The Court explicitly recognized both rationales for the void-for-vagueness doctrine: This ordinance is void-for-vagueness, both in the sense that it `fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute,' United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617 , 74 S.Ct. 808, 812 , 98 L.Ed. 989 , and because it	1	1972–1972
Giaccio v. Pennsylvania green scotus · 1965 2 sentences 1969As pointed out in Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399 , 86 S.Ct. 518 , 15 L.Ed.2d 447 (1966), it must not leave judges and juries free to decide in each case, without legally fixed standards, what conduct shall be deemed prohibited. 1969As pointed out in Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399 , 86 S.Ct. 518 , 15 L.Ed.2d 447 (1966), it must not leave judges and juries free to decide in each case, without legally fixed standards, what conduct shall be deemed prohibited.	1	1969–1969

Where else courts name it

OH 142 (1972–2026) PA 114 (1975–2026) CA 93 (1968–2026) WA 69 (1971–2025) CT 67 (1979–2025) MN 57 (1977–2017) TX 49 (1968–2024) ID 43 (1977–2025) CO 43 (1978–2024) MI 40 (1967–2026) NY 38 (1973–2025) FL 36 (1980–2019) AL 32 (1983–2018) IA 28 (1986–2025) MD 25 (1978–2020) NE 25 (1985–2024) MO 24 (1980–2022) ME 21 (1974–2024) NM 21 (1983–2024) ND 20 (1984–2025) WI 19 (1972–2024) NV 19 (1992–2024) VA 18 (1987–2024) UT 17 (1991–2018) VT 17 (1989–2020) KY 17 (1987–2026) MA 16 (1975–2025) AR 15 (1980–2026) GA 15 (1983–2020) NJ 15 (1968–2021) MS 13 (1976–2021) MT 12 (1985–2020) IL 11 (1978–2021) OK 11 (1994–2018) LA 9 (1986–2023) KS 9 (1989–2026) NC 8 (1999–2026) SC 8 (2007–2025) AK 7 (1969–2024) IN 7 (1992–2024) VI 6 (1995–2015) TN 6 (1996–2025) DC 6 (1975–2023) SD 5 (1983–2015) HI 5 (1981–2016) AZ 5 (1983–2017) RI 4 (1996–2015) OR 3 (1976–1980) WV 3 (1985–2022) DE 2 (1991–1998) GU 2 (2021–2024)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check