5 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 14 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 Commonwealth v. Mikulan.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Commonwealth v. Mikulan Anchor | green | “the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” | 3 |
| 2 | United States v. Forbes | green | “the scientific community cannot even agree on a methodology to use to determine structural similarity.” | 3 |
| 3 | State v. Morgan C. Alley | green | “there is broad agreement in the federal circuit courts that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague.” | 3 |
| 4 | State v. Srack | green | “other federal circuit courts of appeals have reached a similar conclusion.” | 3 |
| 5 | Commonwealth v. Mayfield | green | “due process is satisfied if the statute provides reasonable standards by which a person may gauge his future conduct.” | 2 |
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.