Commonwealth v. O'Connor, L., Pet

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the “‘Supplementary Information’ accompanying an agency rule is separate from the text of the rule itself and is not codified in the Code of Federal Regulations”
• explaining that cathinone is an “obscure scientific term” and “the controlled substances schedule’s vagueness derives not from the language’s imprecision but rather from the schedule essentially being written in a language foreign to persons of ordinary intelligence”
• keeping in mind “the common sense judgment that people do not review copies of every law passed.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• keeping in mind “the common sense judgment that people do not review copies of every law passed.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• surveying standard dictionaries to determine whether a “scientific or technical term” was sufficiently discernible to the public
• rejecting the government’s arguments that the Supplementary Information and the Sentencing Guidelines cure “a vague criminal statute of its constitutional defect”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).