7 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 1994–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Montana 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. Lilburngreen2 sentences2016Spottedbear therefore argues that we should hold that the statute is unconstitutional and void his improper influence conviction in the process. ¶15 The overbreadth doctrine “is an exception to the general rule that statutes are evaluated in light of the situation and facts before the court.” State v. Lilburn, 265 Mont. 258, 264 , 875 P.2d 1036, 1040 (1994). 2016Spottedbear therefore argues that we should hold that the statute is unconstitutional and void his improper influence conviction in the process. ¶15 The overbreadth doctrine “is an exception to the general rule that statutes are evaluated in light of the situation and facts before the court.” State v. Lilburn, 265 Mont. 258, 264 , 875 P.2d 1036, 1040 (1994). | 2 | 3 |
Broadrick v. Oklahomagreen2 sentences2006However, the overbreadth doctrine enables plaintiffs to challenge a statute, not because their own *331 rights of free expression are violated, “but because of a judicial prediction or assumption that the statute’s very existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or expression.” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 612 , 93 S.Ct. 2908, 2916 (1973). ¶77 The overbreadth doctrine is an exception to the general rule that statutes are evaluated in light of the situation and facts before the court. 2006However, the overbreadth doctrine enables plaintiffs to challenge a statute, not because their own *331 rights of free expression are violated, “but because of a judicial prediction or assumption that the statute’s very existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or expression.” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 612 , 93 S.Ct. 2908, 2916 (1973). ¶77 The overbreadth doctrine is an exception to the general rule that statutes are evaluated in light of the situation and facts before the court. | 1 | 3 |
Grayned v. City of Rockfordgreen2 sentences2013O’Shaughnessy, 216 Mont. at 440 , 704 P.2d at 1026 ; Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 114-15 , 92 S. Ct. 2294, 2302 (1972). 2013O’Shaughnessy, 216 Mont. at 440 , 704 P.2d at 1026 ; Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 114-15 , 92 S. Ct. 2294, 2302 (1972). | 1 | 1 |
Yurczyk v. Yellowstone Countygreen2 sentences2005“A statute is void for vagueness on its face if it fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that the statute does not permit his contemplated conduct.” Yurczyk v. Yellowstone County, 2004 MT 3, ¶ 33 , 319 Mont. 169, ¶ 33 , 83 P.3d 266, ¶ 33 (citing State v. Martel (1995), 273 Mont. 143, 150 , 902 P.2d 14, 18 ). 2005“A statute is void for vagueness on its face if it fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that the statute does not permit his contemplated conduct.” Yurczyk v. Yellowstone County, 2004 MT 3, ¶ 33 , 319 Mont. 169, ¶ 33 , 83 P.3d 266, ¶ 33 (citing State v. Martel (1995), 273 Mont. 143, 150 , 902 P.2d 14, 18 ). | 1 | 1 |
R. A. v. v. City of St. Paulgreen2 sentences2005Paul (1992), 505 U.S. 377, 411 , 112 S.Ct. 2538, 2558 , 120 L.Ed.2d 305, 336 (White, J., concurring)). “[A] statute which can be applied to constitutionally protected speech and expression may be found to be invalid in its entirety, even if it could validly apply to the situation before the court.” Lilburn, 265 Mont. at 264 , 875 P.2d at 1040 (citing City of Whitefish v. O’Shaughnessy (1985), 216 Mont. 433 , 704 P.2d 1021 ). 2005Paul (1992), 505 U.S. 377, 411 , 112 S.Ct. 2538, 2558 , 120 L.Ed.2d 305, 336 (White, J., concurring)). “[A] statute which can be applied to constitutionally protected speech and expression may be found to be invalid in its entirety, even if it could validly apply to the situation before the court.” Lilburn, 265 Mont. at 264 , 875 P.2d at 1040 (citing City of Whitefish v. O’Shaughnessy (1985), 216 Mont. 433 , 704 P.2d 1021 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Whitefish v. O'SHAUGHNESSY
green
2 sentences2013O’Shaughnessy, 216 Mont. at 440 , 704 P.2d at 1026 ; Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 114-15 , 92 S. Ct. 2294, 2302 (1972). 2013O’Shaughnessy, 216 Mont. at 440 , 704 P.2d at 1026 ; Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 114-15 , 92 S. Ct. 2294, 2302 (1972). | 2 | 2005–2013 |
State v. Martel
green
2 sentences2005“A statute is void for vagueness on its face if it fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that the statute does not permit his contemplated conduct.” Yurczyk v. Yellowstone County, 2004 MT 3, ¶ 33 , 319 Mont. 169, ¶ 33 , 83 P.3d 266, ¶ 33 (citing State v. Martel (1995), 273 Mont. 143, 150 , 902 P.2d 14, 18 ). 2005“A statute is void for vagueness on its face if it fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that the statute does not permit his contemplated conduct.” Yurczyk v. Yellowstone County, 2004 MT 3, ¶ 33 , 319 Mont. 169, ¶ 33 , 83 P.3d 266, ¶ 33 (citing State v. Martel (1995), 273 Mont. 143, 150 , 902 P.2d 14, 18 ). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc.
green
2 sentences1996In reviewing statutes which have been challenged under the doctrine of overbreadth, this Court has stated that: “[A]n individual whose own speech or expressive conduct may validly be prohibited or sanctioned is permitted to challenge a statute on its face because it also threatens others not before the court — those who desire to engage in legally protected expression but who may refrain from doing so rather than risk prosecution or undertake to have the law declared partially invalid.” Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc. (1985), [472] U.S. [491], [504], 105 S.Ct. 2794, 2802 , 86 L.Ed.2d 394, 40 1996In reviewing statutes which have been challenged under the doctrine of overbreadth, this Court has stated that: “[A]n individual whose own speech or expressive conduct may validly be prohibited or sanctioned is permitted to challenge a statute on its face because it also threatens others not before the court — those who desire to engage in legally protected expression but who may refrain from doing so rather than risk prosecution or undertake to have the law declared partially invalid.” Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc. (1985), [472] U.S. [491], [504], 105 S.Ct. 2794, 2802 , 86 L.Ed.2d 394, 40 | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.