Supreme Court· 1/4/1926

Connally v. General Construction Co.

Citations

269 U.S. 385
46 S. Ct. 126
70 L. Ed. 322
1926 U.S. LEXIS 929

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 law is unconstitutionally vague if a person \of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning\
declaring that statutory definitions can withstand a vagueness challenge \notwithstanding an element of degree in the definition as to which estimates might differ\
finding that vagueness in a criminal statute was exacerbated by use of the terms “neighborhood” and “locality”
finding that for a statute to be vague, it must use “terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its common meaning.”
stating that units of government do not have standing to raise due process and equal protection challenges
explaining that “sufficiently explicit” statutory terms “is a well-recognized requirement, consonant alike with ordinary notions of fair play and the settled rules of law”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Sutherland, Holmes, Cleveland

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

2,364 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.