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 2 cases, quoted by 17 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 City of Seattle v. Huff.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City of Seattle v. Huff Anchor | green | “a law is overbroad if it sweeps within its prohibitions constitutionally protected free speech activities.” | 6 |
| 2 | O'DAY v. King County | green | “void for vagueness if it is framed in terms so vague that persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.” | 5 |
| 3 | O'DAY v. King County | green | “under the fourteenth amendment, a penal statute is void for vagueness if it is framed in terms so vague that persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.” | 3 |
| 4 | O'DAY v. King County | green | “where first amendment freedoms are at stake a greater degree of specificity and clarity of purpose is essential.” | 3 |
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.