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.
4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 31 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from State v. Bahl.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | State v. Bahl Anchor | green | “the due process vagueness doctrine under the fourteenth amendment and article i, section 3 of the state constitution requires that citizens have fair warning of proscribed conduct.” | 10 |
| 2 | State v. Bahl | green | “protect against arbitrary enforcement.” | 9 |
| 3 | State Of Washington v. Samuel Lee Irwin | green | “without some clarifying language or an illustrative list of prohibited locations . . . the condition does not give ordinary people sufficient notice to 'understand what conduct is proscribed.” | 7 |
| 4 | State v. Valencia | green | “a community custody condition is not unconstitutionally vague merely because a person cannot predict with complete certainty the exact point at which his actions would be classified as prohibited conduct.” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.