Connally v. General Construction Co.

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).