Cashatt v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a facial challenge to a statute is more difficult than an “as applied” challenge because the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the statute would be valid
• holding that a facial challenge to a statute is more difficult than an \as applied\ challenge because the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the statute would be valid
• concluding that the failure of section 847.0135(3) to contain a mens rea requirement is not fatal because criminal statutes are presumed to include a knowledge requirement in the absence of a contrary legislative statement
• holding that a facial challenge to a statute is more difficult than an “as applied” challenge because the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the statute would be valid
• holding that section 847.0135 does not violate the commerce clause
• explaining that a facial constitutional challenge “must fail unless no set of circumstances exists in which the statute can be constitutionally applied”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).