7 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2016–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Solterogreen2 sentences2016The identification of the “Delhi street gang” was key in insulating the condition from a vagueness challenge. ¶35 The condition was held to be impermissibly vague in prohibiting the defendant from associating with “any known member of any . . . disruptive group.” Id. at 867 (alteration in original). 2016The condition was held to be impermissibly vague in prohibiting the defendant from associating with "any known member of any ... disruptive group." Id. at 867 (alteration in original). | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2016The court concluded that “disruptive group” could reasonably be interpreted to include groups the government cannot reasonably restrict a defendant from associating with, such as political protesters, labor unions, or sports fans. ¶36 In United States v. Johnson, 626 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2010), the Ninth Circuit struck down the following condition of supervised release as vague: “The defendant may not associate with anyone known to him to be a Rollin’ 30’s gang member or persons associated with the Rollin’ 30’s gang, with the exception of his family members.” The court held that “[t]here 2016The court concluded that “disruptive group” could reasonably be interpreted to include groups the government cannot reasonably restrict a defendant from associating with, such as political protesters, labor unions, or sports fans. ¶36 In United States v. Johnson, 626 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2010), the Ninth Circuit struck down the following condition of supervised release as vague: “The defendant may not associate with anyone known to him to be a Rollin’ 30’s gang member or persons associated with the Rollin’ 30’s gang, with the exception of his family members.” The court held that “[t]here | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bahl
green
2 sentences2025As this court noted in Padilla, a “vague definition does not save the condition from a vagueness challenge if it also encompasses a broad range of speech protected by the First Amendment.” 190 Wn.2d at 680 -81 (citing Bahl, 164 Wn.2d at 756 ). 2018Bahl, 164 Wash.2d at 756 , 193 P.3d 678 . | 4 | 2018–2025 |
State v. Padilla
green
1 sentence2025As this court noted in Padilla, a “vague definition does not save the condition from a vagueness challenge if it also encompasses a broad range of speech protected by the First Amendment.” 190 Wn.2d at 680 -81 (citing Bahl, 164 Wn.2d at 756 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
United States v. Vega
green
1 sentence2019Fifth, in United States v. Vega, 545 F.3d 743 (9th Cir. 2008), the court analyzed a condition nearly identical to that in Soltero. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Bahl
green
2 sentences2018Id. at 756 , 193 P.3d 678 (CCO could interpret the condition to "include any nude depiction" as including "a photograph of Michelangelo's sculpture of David.") (citing States v . 2018Id. at 756 , 193 P.3d 678 (CCO could interpret the condition to "include any nude depiction" as including "a photograph of Michelangelo's sculpture of David.") (citing States v . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.