Cases pin-citing Parker · Go Syfert
Search » Famous passages » Cases pin-citing Parker

Cases pin-citing Parker

Parker v. Levy  ·  1974  ·  187 pinpoint citations from 58 cases, 20 distinct passages.

Traore v. Baltimore Police Department  ·  2023-12-12  ·  D. Maryland  ·  pin 417 U.S. at 733
“The principle extends to the First Amendment context . . . .”
Gessler v. Smith  ·  2018-06-04  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
"One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness."
Doe v. Marine-Lombard  ·  2017-03-08  ·  E.D. Louisiana  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“Burke cannot challenge the constitutionality of § 922(a)(1)(A) for vagueness, because his conduct was unquestionably prohibited by the statute.”
Hazout v. Tsang Mun Ting  ·  2016-02-26  ·  Supreme Court of Delaware  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“This Court has ... repeatedly expressed its reluctance to strike down, a statute on its face where there were a substantial number of situations to which it might be validly applied.”
United States v. Bronstein  ·  2015-12-22  ·  District of Columbia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.”
State v. Packingham  ·  2015-11-06  ·  Supreme Court of North Carolina  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 417 S. Ct. at 733
“One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.”
United States v. Akbar  ·  2015-08-19  ·  Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“[T]he military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society.”
United States v. Jackie Burke  ·  2014-08-11  ·  Fifth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.”
United States v. Joel Esquenazi  ·  2014-05-16  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.”
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Cuomo  ·  2013-12-31  ·  W.D. New York  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“[A] person to whom a statute may constitutionally be applied will not be heard to challenge that statute on the ground that it may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to others, in other situations not before the Court.”
Calop Business Systems, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles  ·  2013-10-30  ·  C.D. California  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness”
Geneva College v. Sebelius  ·  2013-03-06  ·  W.D. Pennsylvania  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness”
Grote Industries, LLC v. Sebelius  ·  2012-12-27  ·  S.D. Indiana  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.”
Michael Mileski v. Eddie Washington  ·  2012-04-04  ·  Sixth Circuit  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness”
National Organization for Marriage, Inc. v. McKee  ·  2012-01-31  ·  First Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.”
United States v. Kim  ·  2011-08-24  ·  District of Columbia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.”
Center for Individual Freedom, Inc. v. Tennant  ·  2011-07-18  ·  S.D. West Virginia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.”
Amaya v. New Jersey  ·  2011-02-10  ·  D. New Jersey  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“[o]ne to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness”
Gallagher v. Magner Ex Rel. City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement  ·  2010-09-01  ·  Eighth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.”
Owens v. Department of Human Rights  ·  2010-08-13  ·  Appellate Court of Illinois  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“[o]ne to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness”
Humane Society Western Region v. Snohomish County  ·  2009-12-10  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.”
Stover v. FINGERHUT DIRECT MARKETING, INC.  ·  2009-08-26  ·  S.D. West Virginia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.”
In Re Evans  ·  2009-08-23  ·  E.D. Virginia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.”
CONGELOSI v. Miller  ·  2009-04-27  ·  W.D. New York  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“conduct unbecoming an officer”
Witt v. Department of Air Force  ·  2008-12-04  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
"This Court has long recognized that the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society."
Sok v. Spencer  ·  2008-09-24  ·  D. Massachusetts  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“Void for vagueness simply means that criminal responsibility should not attach where one could not reasonably understand that his contemplated conduct is proscribed.”
United States v. Taleb-Jedi  ·  2008-07-23  ·  E.D. New York  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.”
Quik Payday, Inc. v. Stork  ·  2007-09-07  ·  D. Kansas  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.”
WATER AND SEWER COM'RS OF MOBILE v. Hunter  ·  2006-07-28  ·  Supreme Court of Alabama  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
"One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness."
Ahern v. City of Syracuse  ·  2006-01-13  ·  N.D. New York  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“conduct unbecoming an officer”
Singson v. Commonwealth  ·  2005-11-08  ·  Court of Appeals of Virginia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“This Court has ... repeatedly expressed its reluctance to strike down a statute on its face where there were a substantial number of situations to which it might be validly applied.”
Steven Mark Lasar v. Ford Motor Company, and Lawrence Sutter  ·  2005-03-03  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.”
Robert Perez v. Michael J. Hoblock, Jr. Cheryl Buley Joseph P. Neglia Edward J. Martin  ·  2004-05-18  ·  Second Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.”
Boyd v. County of Henrico  ·  2004-02-24  ·  Court of Appeals of Virginia  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
"One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness."
Boyd v. County of Henrico  ·  2003-06-10  ·  Court of Appeals of Virginia  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.”
In re Leno  ·  2000-05-12  ·  Grand Ronde Tribal Court  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.”
State v. Lefevre  ·  1998-07-21  ·  Court of Appeals of Arizona  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.”
State v. Wilchinski  ·  1997-07-29  ·  Supreme Court of Connecticut  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“[o]ne to whose conduct a statute applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness”
United States v. Radvansky  ·  1996-09-30  ·  Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“different character of the military community and of the military mission requires a different application of those protections”
Ilq Investments, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation Excalibur Group, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation v. City of Rochester, a Municipal Corporation  ·  1994-06-15  ·  Eighth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness”
United States v. Lawson  ·  1993-04-19  ·  United States Court of Military Appeals  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“The fundamental necessity for obedience, and the consequent necessity for imposition of discipline, may render permissible within the military that which would be constitutionally impermissible outside it.”
United States v. Weiss  ·  1992-12-21  ·  United States Court of Military Appeals  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“This Court has long recognized that the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society____ [T]he military has, again by necessity, developed laws and traditions of its own during its long history.”
United States v. McGuinness  ·  1992-09-14  ·  United States Court of Military Appeals  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“Where there is ‘a substantial range of conduct’ to which” a statute applies, the statute “is not fatally deficient, even though an area of uncertainty may remain.”
Gandee v. Glaser  ·  1992-02-24  ·  S.D. Ohio  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.”
Alvin Love v. Norman Butler  ·  1991-12-19  ·  First Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.”
United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers  ·  1991-08-06  ·  Second Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.”
United States v. International Brotherhood Of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen And Helpers Of America, Afl-Cio  ·  1991-08-06  ·  Second Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
"One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness."
State v. Worrell  ·  1988-09-08  ·  Washington Supreme Court  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
"One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness."
United States v. Eloy Salazar  ·  1983-11-04  ·  Tenth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 41 L. Ed. 2d at 439
“One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.”
Page 1 of 4   Next →