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 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama 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 |
|---|---|---|
Shelton v. Tuckergreen2 sentences2015In addressing whether a statute, regulation, or ordinance is unreasonable, this Court applies the doctrine of overbreadth. “ ‘The doctrine of overbreadth recognizes that a state legislature may have a legitimate and substantial interest in regulating particular behavior, but “that purpose cannot be pursued by means that broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties when the end can be more narrowly achieved.” Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 488 , 81 S.Ct. 247, 252 , 5 L.Ed.2d 231 (1960) [quoting Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241 , 88 S.Ct. 391 , 19 L.Ed.2d 444 (1967) ]. 2015In addressing whether a statute, regulation, or ordinance is unreasonable, this Court applies the doctrine of overbreadth. “ ‘The doctrine of overbreadth recognizes that a state legislature may have a legitimate and substantial interest in regulating particular behavior, but “that purpose cannot be pursued by means that broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties when the end can be more narrowly achieved.” Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 488 , 81 S.Ct. 247, 252 , 5 L.Ed.2d 231 (1960) [quoting Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241 , 88 S.Ct. 391 , 19 L.Ed.2d 444 (1967) ]. | 1 | 6 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Zwickler v. Koota
green
2 sentences2015In addressing whether a statute, regulation, or ordinance is unreasonable, this Court applies the doctrine of overbreadth. “ ‘The doctrine of overbreadth recognizes that a state legislature may have a legitimate and substantial interest in regulating particular behavior, but “that purpose cannot be pursued by means that broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties when the end can be more narrowly achieved.” Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 488 , 81 S.Ct. 247, 252 , 5 L.Ed.2d 231 (1960) [quoting Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241 , 88 S.Ct. 391 , 19 L.Ed.2d 444 (1967) ]. 2015In addressing whether a statute, regulation, or ordinance is unreasonable, this Court applies the doctrine of overbreadth. “ ‘The doctrine of overbreadth recognizes that a state legislature may have a legitimate and substantial interest in regulating particular behavior, but “that purpose cannot be pursued by means that broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties when the end can be more narrowly achieved.” Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 488 , 81 S.Ct. 247, 252 , 5 L.Ed.2d 231 (1960) [quoting Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241 , 88 S.Ct. 391 , 19 L.Ed.2d 444 (1967) ]. | 3 | 2002–2015 |
Friday v. Ethanol Corp.
green
2 sentences2007However, in Friday v. Ethanol Corporation , 539 So.2d 208 (Ala. 1988), this Court recognized a broader application of the overbreadth doctrine by stating, in pertinent part: "`The doctrine of overbreadth recognizes that a state legislature may have a legitimate and substantial interest in regulating particular behavior, but "that purpose cannot be pursued by means that broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties when the end can be more narrowly achieved." Shelton v. Tucker , 364 U.S. 479 , 488 , 81 S.Ct. 247 , 252 , 5 L.Ed.2d 231 (1960) [quoting Zwickler v. Koota , 389 U.S. 241 , 88 S.Ct. 3 2007However, in Friday v. Ethanol Corporation, 539 So.2d 208 (Ala.1988), this Court recognized a broader application of the overbreadth doctrine by stating, in pertinent part: "`The doctrine of overbreadth recognizes that a state legislature may have a legitimate and substantial interest in regulating particular behavior, but "that purpose cannot be pursued by means that broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties when the end can be more narrowly achieved." Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 488 , 81 S.Ct. 247, 252 , 5 L.Ed.2d 231 (1960) [quoting Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241 , 88 S.Ct. 391 , 1 | 2 | 2002–2007 |