Christopher J. Farrell v. Corey Burke and Gregory Freeman, Docket No. 05-0169 Cv

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a statutory definition of a term does not give additional notice to a defendant as to that term’s meaning unless the definition is contained in the same criminal statute that the defendant was convicted of violating
• holding that even where statutory standards are not sufficiently clear to eliminate the risk of arbitrary enforcement, an as-applied challenge will fail if “the conduct at issue falls within the core of the statute’s prohibition”
• noting that “the permissibility of a facial challenge sometimes depends upon whether the challenged regulation was constitutional as applied to the plaintiff’
• holding that, where a prior official imposed an allegedly unconstitutional special condition of parole, an allegation that another official not only continued that condition but actively enforced it by arresting the plaintiff was sufficient to show personal involvement
• holding that, where a prior official imposed an allegedly unconstitutional special condition of parole, an allegation that another official not only continued that condition but actively enforced it by arresting the plaintiff was sufficient to show personal involvement
• finding that, as a prerequisite to an award of damages under § 1983, a plaintiff must show the personal involvement of the defendants in the alleged constitutional deprivations

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).