7 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South 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 |
|---|---|---|
South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Michelle G.green2 sentences2025Furthermore, "[c]ondemned to the use of words, we can never expect mathematical certainty from our language." Grayned, 408 U.S. at 110 . "[A]ll the Constitution requires is that the language convey sufficiently definite warnings as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices." Michelle G., 407 S.C. at 506 , 757 S.E.2d at 392 (alteration in original) (quoting Curtis, 345 S.C. at 572 , 549 S.E.2d at 599 ). 2025Furthermore, "[c]ondemned to the use of words, we can never expect mathematical certainty from our language." Grayned, 408 U.S. at 110 . "[A]ll the Constitution requires is that the language convey sufficiently definite warnings as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices." Michelle G., 407 S.C. at 506 , 757 S.E.2d at 392 (alteration in original) (quoting Curtis, 345 S.C. at 572 , 549 S.E.2d at 599 ). | 3 | 3 |
Curtis v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Furthermore, "[c]ondemned to the use of words, we can never expect mathematical certainty from our language." Grayned, 408 U.S. at 110 . "[A]ll the Constitution requires is that the language convey sufficiently definite warnings as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices." Michelle G., 407 S.C. at 506 , 757 S.E.2d at 392 (alteration in original) (quoting Curtis, 345 S.C. at 572 , 549 S.E.2d at 599 ). 2025Furthermore, "[c]ondemned to the use of words, we can never expect mathematical certainty from our language." Grayned, 408 U.S. at 110 . "[A]ll the Constitution requires is that the language convey sufficiently definite warnings as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices." Michelle G., 407 S.C. at 506 , 757 S.E.2d at 392 (alteration in original) (quoting Curtis, 345 S.C. at 572 , 549 S.E.2d at 599 ). | 1 | 4 |
Connally v. General Construction Co.green1 sentence2021Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926). "[A]ll the Constitution requires is that the language convey sufficiently definite warnings as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices." S.C. | 1 | 1 |
Toth v. Square D Companygreen2 sentences2015Servs. v. Michelle G., 407 S.C. 499, 506 , 757 S.E.2d 388, 392 (2014) ("[A]ll the Constitution requires is that the language convey sufficiently definite warnings as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices."(quoting Curtis v. State, 345 S.C. 557, 572 , 549 S.E.2d 591, 599 (2001))); Curtis v. State, 345 S.C. 557, 572 , 549 S.E.2d 591, 599 (2001) (recognizing that an undefined term in a statute does not automatically render the statute unconstitutionally vague (citing State v. Hamilton, 276 S.C. 173 , 276 S.E.2d 784 (1981))). 20 See Toth v. Square D Co., 298 2015Servs. v. Michelle G., 407 S.C. 499, 506 , 757 S.E.2d 388, 392 (2014) ("[A]ll the Constitution requires is that the language convey sufficiently definite warnings as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices."(quoting Curtis v. State, 345 S.C. 557, 572 , 549 S.E.2d 591, 599 (2001))); Curtis v. State, 345 S.C. 557, 572 , 549 S.E.2d 591, 599 (2001) (recognizing that an undefined term in a statute does not automatically render the statute unconstitutionally vague (citing State v. Hamilton, 276 S.C. 173 , 276 S.E.2d 784 (1981))). 20 See Toth v. Square D Co., 298 | 1 | 1 |
In the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-5209 & No. JS-4963green1 sentence2014Bar, 392 S.C. at 335 , 709 S.E.2d at 637 (citing Curtis, 345 S.C. at 572 , 549 S.E.2d at 598 ). “[A]ll the Constitution requires is that the language convey sufficiently definite warnings as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices.” Curtis, 345 S.C. at 572 , 549 S.E.2d at 599 ; cf. Maricopa, 692 P.2d at 1034 (“The requirement that statutory language must be reasonably certain is satisfied ‘by the use of ordinary terms which find adequate interpretation in common usage and understanding,’ or if the term can be given meaning by reference to other definable s | 1 | 1 |
State v. Solomongreen2 sentences2001See State v. Solomon, 245 S.C. 550 , 141 S.E.2d 818 (1965). 2001See State v. Solomon, 245 S.C. 550 , 141 S.E.2d 818 (1965). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Grayned v. City of Rockford
green
1 sentence2025Furthermore, "[c]ondemned to the use of words, we can never expect mathematical certainty from our language." Grayned, 408 U.S. at 110 . "[A]ll the Constitution requires is that the language convey sufficiently definite warnings as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices." Michelle G., 407 S.C. at 506 , 757 S.E.2d at 392 (alteration in original) (quoting Curtis, 345 S.C. at 572 , 549 S.E.2d at 599 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Hamilton
green
2 sentences2015Servs. v. Michelle G., 407 S.C. 499, 506 , 757 S.E.2d 388, 392 (2014) ("[A]ll the Constitution requires is that the language convey sufficiently definite warnings as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices.” (quoting Curtis v. State, 345 S.C. 557, 572 , 549 S.E.2d 591, 599 (2001))); Curtis v. State, 345 S.C. 557, 572 , 549 S.E.2d 591, 599 (2001) (recognizing that an undefined term in a statute does not automatically render the statute unconstitutionally vague (citing State v. Hamilton, 276 S.C. 173 , 276 S.E.2d 784 (1981))). . 2015Servs. v. Michelle G., 407 S.C. 499, 506 , 757 S.E.2d 388, 392 (2014) ("[A]ll the Constitution requires is that the language convey sufficiently definite warnings as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices.” (quoting Curtis v. State, 345 S.C. 557, 572 , 549 S.E.2d 591, 599 (2001))); Curtis v. State, 345 S.C. 557, 572 , 549 S.E.2d 591, 599 (2001) (recognizing that an undefined term in a statute does not automatically render the statute unconstitutionally vague (citing State v. Hamilton, 276 S.C. 173 , 276 S.E.2d 784 (1981))). . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Town of Mount Pleasant v. Chimento
green
2 sentences2014“The constitutionality of a statute must be considered in light of the standing of the party who seeks to raise the question and of its particular application.... ” Town of Mount Pleasant v. Chimento, 401 S.C. 522 , 535 n. 7, 737 S.E.2d 830 , 839 n. 7 (2012) (citation omitted). 2014“The constitutionality of a statute must be considered in light of the standing of the party who seeks to raise the question and of its particular application.... ” Town of Mount Pleasant v. Chimento, 401 S.C. 522 , 535 n. 7, 737 S.E.2d 830 , 839 n. 7 (2012) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In Re Anonymous Member of the South Carolina Bar
green
2 sentences2014Bar, 392 S.C. at 335 , 709 S.E.2d at 637 (citing Curtis, 345 S.C. at 572 , 549 S.E.2d at 598 ). “[A]ll the Constitution requires is that the language convey sufficiently definite warnings as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices.” Curtis, 345 S.C. at 572 , 549 S.E.2d at 599 ; cf. Maricopa, 692 P.2d at 1034 (“The requirement that statutory language must be reasonably certain is satisfied ‘by the use of ordinary terms which find adequate interpretation in common usage and understanding,’ or if the term can be given meaning by reference to other definable s 2014Bar, 392 S.C. at 335 , 709 S.E.2d at 637 (citing Curtis, 345 S.C. at 572 , 549 S.E.2d at 598 ). “[A]ll the Constitution requires is that the language convey sufficiently definite warnings as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices.” Curtis, 345 S.C. at 572 , 549 S.E.2d at 599 ; cf. Maricopa, 692 P.2d at 1034 (“The requirement that statutory language must be reasonably certain is satisfied ‘by the use of ordinary terms which find adequate interpretation in common usage and understanding,’ or if the term can be given meaning by reference to other definable s | 1 | 2014–2014 |