DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. McLamb, 932 P.2d 266.

37 citing documents.

  • State v. Meeds 421 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Meeds 421 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶ 5 (App. 2010); (“When the language is clear, [a] statute is not rendered unconstitutionally vague because there is a theoretical potential for arbitrary enforcement or the 10 STATE v. MEEDS Opinion of the Court exercise o
  • State of Arizona v. Earl Jefferson Causbie 384 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • State v. Burke 360 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Burke 360 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Ultimately, “[i]f a statute gives notice of prohibited conduct, it is not void for vagueness ‘simply because it may be difficult to determine how far one can go before the statute is violated.’” ( ).
  • State v. Bagdonas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Bagdonas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    “‘A legislative enactment is unconstitutionally vague if it does not give persons of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to learn what it prohibits and does not provide explicit standards for those who will apply it.’” (citing cases).
  • State of Arizona v. Manuel Alejandro Delgado 303 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • State of Arizona v. Manuel Alejandro Delgado 303 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • State v. PUTZI 225 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • State v. PUTZI 225 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • State v. McDermott 93 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. McDermott 93 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    ¶ 15 The language also is sufficiently clear that there is no more than a “theoretical potential for arbitrary enforcement.”
  • State v. Kaiser 65 P.3d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Mutschler 65 P.3d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Kaiser 65 P.3d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Mutschler 65 P.3d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    includes within its scope activities which are protected by the First Amendment.” , (citations omitted).
  • Empress Adult Video & Bookstore v. City of Tucson 59 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • Empress Adult Video & Bookstore v. City of Tucson 59 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
    Arizona’s courts have applied O’Brien in determining whether the First Amendment protects such forms of allegedly expressive conduct as wearing a peace officer's insignia, , , (App.1996); wagering on elections, , and committing prostitution by performing a sex show with another person for compensation.
  • State v. McMahon 38 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. McMahon 38 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Evenson 33 P.3d 780 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Evenson 33 P.3d 780 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    “ ‘An overbroad statute is one designed to burden or punish activities which are not constitutionally protected, but the statute includes withiii its scope activities which are protected by the First Amendment.’ ” , (quoting John E. Nowak et al., Constitutional Law ch. 18, § III, at 868 (2d ed.1983); , ).
  • State v. Seyrafi 32 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Seyrafi 32 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    Additionally, our review “does not include an examination of whether those provisions were constitutionally applied in [defendant’s] case.” -33 , -07 (App.1997)(emphasis added)
  • State v. Boyd 31 P.3d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Boyd 31 P.3d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • City of Tucson v. Grezaffi 23 P.3d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • City of Tucson v. Grezaffi 23 P.3d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • State v. Kessler 13 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Kessler 13 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    826 , 63 L.Ed.2d 73 (1980); , cert.
  • State v. Alawy 9 P.3d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Alawy 9 P.3d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    § 22-375; -333 , -907 (App. 1997); 4 , 269 (App.1996).
  • State v. Watson 6 P.3d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Watson 6 P.3d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Trachtman 947 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Trachtman 947 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    3348, 3359-60 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982) (“The traditional rule is that a person to whom a statute may constitutionally be applied may not challenge that statute on the ground that it may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to others in situations not before the court.”); , (“ ‘A defendant whose conduct is clearly proscribed by the core of the statute has no standing to attack the statute.’ ”) (-20 , -78 (1988)); , (“Unless the