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.
6 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 2017–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois 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 |
|---|---|---|
Broadrick v. Oklahomared2 sentences2020Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 612 (1973); see also People v. Relerford, 2017 IL 121094, ¶ 50 ; Minnis, 2016 IL 119563, ¶¶ 14, 24 . 2019Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 612 (1973); see also People v. Relerford, 2017 IL 121094, ¶ 50 ; Minnis, 2016 IL 119563, ¶¶ 14, 24 . | 3 | 4 |
United States v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2024Under the overbreadth doctrine of the first amendment, “ ‘a statute is facially invalid if it prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech.’ ” Id. ¶ 90 (quoting United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 292 (2008)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Minnis
green
2 sentences2019In order to survive intermediate -8- scrutiny, a content-neutral regulation of protected speech—such as that at issue here— “(1) must serve or advance a substantial governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of free speech and (2) must not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further that interest—or in other words, it must be narrowly tailored to serve that interest without unnecessarily interfering with first amendment freedoms.” Minnis, 2016 IL 119563, ¶ 36 . ¶ 23 The overbreadth doctrine permits a party to challenge a statute as a facial violation of the first amendme 2018Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 612 (1973); People v. Minnis, 2016 IL 119563 , ¶ 14. | 3 | 2017–2019 |
People v. Relerford
green
1 sentence2019Relerford, 2017 IL 121094, ¶ 50 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.