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 New Jersey opinions name it 3 courts 2001–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hamilton Amusement Center v. Vernierogreen2 sentences2012Our statute' has withstood a facial constitutional challenge, Hamilton Amusement, supra, 156 N.J. at 262, 716 A.2d 1137 (concurring in Appellate División’s constitutional analysis), and this Court has held that the statute is instead subjected to an as-applied challenge. 2012Our statute' has withstood a facial constitutional challenge, Hamilton Amusement, supra, 156 N.J. at 262, 716 A.2d 1137 (concurring in Appellate División’s constitutional analysis), and this Court has held that the statute is instead subjected to an as-applied challenge. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Allied Oil Corp.green1 sentence2009Rather, "the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the [statute] would be valid." United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 , 107 S.Ct. 2095, 2100 , 95 L.Ed. 2d 697, 707 (1987). | 1 | 1 |
Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.green2 sentences2001Furthermore, when there is a facial constitutional challenge alleging vagueness in the regulation, it will be struck down "only if it is `impermissibly vague in all of its applications.'" State v. Saunders, 302 N.J.Super. 509, 520 , 695 A. 2d 722 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 151 N.J. 470 , 700 A. 2d 881 (1997) (quoting Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 494-95 , 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1191 , 71 L.Ed. 2d 362, 369 (1982)). 2001Furthermore, when there is a facial constitutional challenge alleging vagueness in the regulation, it will be struck down "only if it is `impermissibly vague in all of its applications.'" State v. Saunders, 302 N.J.Super. 509, 520 , 695 A. 2d 722 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 151 N.J. 470 , 700 A. 2d 881 (1997) (quoting Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 494-95 , 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1191 , 71 L.Ed. 2d 362, 369 (1982)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Grant of the Charter School Application of Englewood on Palisades Charter School
green
1 sentence2021There, three boards of education asserted a facial constitutional challenge to the Act, claiming that the statute violated “principles of equal protection and due process,” that it violated “the prohibition against the donation of public funds for private purposes,” and that it constituted “an improper delegation of legislative power to a private body.” Englewood, 164 N.J. at 318-19 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
General Motors Corp. v. City of Linden
green
1 sentence2020The Supreme Court considered a facial constitutional challenge to N.J.S.A. 54:4-1 in General Motors Corp. v. City of Linden, 150 N.J. 522 (1997). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Whirlpool Properties, Inc. v. DIR., DIV. OF TAX.
green
2 sentences2012Whirlpool Props., Inc. v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, 208 N.J. 141, 176-77 , 26 A.3d 446 (2011). 2012Whirlpool Props., Inc. v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, 208 N.J. 141, 176-77 , 26 A.3d 446 (2011). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
United States v. Salerno
green
2 sentences2009Rather, "the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the [statute] would be valid." United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 , 107 S.Ct. 2095, 2100 , 95 L.Ed. 2d 697, 707 (1987). 2009Rather, "the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the [statute] would be valid." United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 , 107 S.Ct. 2095, 2100 , 95 L.Ed. 2d 697, 707 (1987). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Cameron
green
1 sentence2009However, [i]n either a facial or as-applied vagueness attack, the level of judicial scrutiny and degree of required clarity will depend on the purpose of the statute, the context in which the law is challenged, the conduct that is subject to its strictures, the nature of the punishment that is authorized, and, finally, the potential impact of the statute upon activities and interests that are constitutionally protected. [ Ibid. ] When a facial constitutional challenge to a statute is advanced, the effects on a particular individual are not dispositive. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Saunders
green
2 sentences2001Furthermore, when there is a facial constitutional challenge alleging vagueness in the regulation, it will be struck down "only if it is `impermissibly vague in all of its applications.'" State v. Saunders, 302 N.J.Super. 509, 520 , 695 A. 2d 722 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 151 N.J. 470 , 700 A. 2d 881 (1997) (quoting Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 494-95 , 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1191 , 71 L.Ed. 2d 362, 369 (1982)). 2001Furthermore, when there is a facial constitutional challenge alleging vagueness in the regulation, it will be struck down "only if it is `impermissibly vague in all of its applications.'" State v. Saunders, 302 N.J.Super. 509, 520 , 695 A. 2d 722 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 151 N.J. 470 , 700 A. 2d 881 (1997) (quoting Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 494-95 , 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1191 , 71 L.Ed. 2d 362, 369 (1982)). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Matter of If
green
1 sentence2001Furthermore, when there is a facial constitutional challenge alleging vagueness in the regulation, it will be struck down "only if it is `impermissibly vague in all of its applications.'" State v. Saunders, 302 N.J.Super. 509, 520 , 695 A. 2d 722 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 151 N.J. 470 , 700 A. 2d 881 (1997) (quoting Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 494-95 , 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1191 , 71 L.Ed. 2d 362, 369 (1982)). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.