Duncantell v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• addressing interference with a “peace officer performing a duty imposed by law, such as investigating an accident or arresting a criminal suspect”
• addressing interference with a “peace officer performing a duty imposed by law, such as investigating an accident or arresting a criminal suspect”
• “[W]e will not strike down a statute for overbreadth unless there is a realistic danger that the statute itself will significantly compromise recognized First Amendment protections of parties not before the Court.”
• “As our discussion of the sufficiency of the evidence indicates, appellant violated the interference statute and therefore, we will sustain his facial vagueness challenge only if the statute is impermissi-bly vague as applied to his conduct at issue here.”
• “As our discussion of the sufficiency of the evidence indicates, appellant violated the interference statute and therefore, we will sustain his facial vagueness challenge only if the statute is impermissibly vague as applied to his conduct at issue here.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).