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 South Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 1997–2012 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Amir X.S.green2 sentences2011The overbreadth doctrine has “been implemented out of concern that the threat of enforcement of an overly broad law may deter or ‘chill’ constitutionally protected speech — especially when the overly broad law imposes criminal sanctions.” Id. at 384-85 , 639 S.E.2d at 146 (citation omitted). 2011Under the overbreadth doctrine, “the party challenging a statute simply must demonstrate that the statute could cause someone else — anyone else — to refrain from constitutionally protected expression.” Id. (citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Gainesgreen2 sentences2012See State v. Gaines, 380 S.C. 23 , 28 n. 1, 667 S.E.2d 728 , 731 n. 1 (2008) (affirming defendant’s convictions for criminal solicitation of a minor and stating, "the First Amendment does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech to establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive or intent”). 6 . 2012See State v. Gaines, 380 S.C. 23 , 28 n. 1, 667 S.E.2d 728 , 731 n. 1 (2008) (affirming defendant’s convictions for criminal solicitation of a minor and stating, "the First Amendment does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech to establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive or intent”). 6 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bouyegreen2 sentences2009See In re Amir X.S., 371 S.C. 380, 384 , 639 S.E.2d 144, 146 (2006) (noting a person raising a First Amendment overbreadth doctrine challenge to a statute must demonstrate that the statute could cause someone to refrain from constitutionally-protected expression); State v. Bouye, 325 S.C. 260, 265 , 484 S.E.2d 461, 464 (1997) (“The overbreadth doctrine applies only to First Amendment cases where the challenged law would have a ‘chilling effect’ on constitutionally protected forms of speech.”). 2009See In re Amir X.S., 371 S.C. 380, 384 , 639 S.E.2d 144, 146 (2006) (noting a person raising a First Amendment overbreadth doctrine challenge to a statute must demonstrate that the statute could cause someone to refrain from constitutionally-protected expression); State v. Bouye, 325 S.C. 260, 265 , 484 S.E.2d 461, 464 (1997) (“The overbreadth doctrine applies only to First Amendment cases where the challenged law would have a ‘chilling effect’ on constitutionally protected forms of speech.”). | 1 | 1 |
Schmitt v. Stategreen1 sentence1997The overbreadth doctrine is considered one of last resort and should be used sparingly, “especially where the statute in question is primarily meant to regulate conduct and not merely pure speech.” Schmitt v. State, 590 So.2d 404, 412 (Fla.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 964 , 112 S.Ct. 1572 , 118 L.Ed.2d 216 (1992). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union
green
2 sentences2008Gaines' reliance on Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U.S. 656 , 124 S.Ct. 2783 , 159 L.Ed.2d 690 (2004) is misplaced; Ashcroft involved an overbreadth challenge to the Child Online Protection Act. [2] Section 16-15-342 was added by 2004 Act No. 208, § 4, effective April 26, 2004. 2008Gaines' reliance on Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U.S. 656 , 124 S.Ct. 2783 , 159 L.Ed.2d 690 (2004) is misplaced; Ashcroft involved an overbreadth challenge to the Child Online Protection Act. [2] Section 16-15-342 was added by 2004 Act No. 208, § 4, effective April 26, 2004. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Broadrick v. Oklahoma
green
2 sentences2006Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 613 , 93 S.Ct. 2908 . 2006Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 613 , 93 S.Ct. 2908 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent
green
2 sentences2006Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. at 799-800 , 104 S.Ct. 2118 (quoting Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 615 , 93 S.Ct. 2908 ). 2006Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. at 799-800 , 104 S.Ct. 2118 (quoting Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 615 , 93 S.Ct. 2908 ). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Schmitt v. Florida
green
2 sentences1997The overbreadth doctrine is considered one of last resort and should be used sparingly, “especially where the statute in question is primarily meant to regulate conduct and not merely pure speech.” Schmitt v. State, 590 So.2d 404, 412 (Fla.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 964 , 112 S.Ct. 1572 , 118 L.Ed.2d 216 (1992). 1997The overbreadth doctrine is considered one of last resort and should be used sparingly, “especially where the statute in question is primarily meant to regulate conduct and not merely pure speech.” Schmitt v. State, 590 So.2d 404, 412 (Fla.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 964 , 112 S.Ct. 1572 , 118 L.Ed.2d 216 (1992). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.