4 canonical passages across 4 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 People v. Hrlic.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | People v. Hrlic Anchor | green | “to evaluate a vagueness challenge, this court must examine the entire text of the statute and give the words of the statute their ordinary meanings.” | 5 |
| 2 | People v. Cavaiani | green | “the doctrine of overbreadth is primarily applied to first amendment cases where an overbroad statute prohibits constitutionally protected conduct.” | 3 |
| 3 | People v. Wilson | green | “reference to a dictionary is appropriate to determine the ordinary meaning of a word.” | 3 |
| 4 | People v. Gratsch | green | “when a defendant's vagueness challenge does not implicate first amendment freedoms, the constitutionality of the statute in question must be examined in light of the particular facts at hand without concern for the hypothetical rights of others.” | 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.