Gary Thibodeau v. Leonard Portuondo

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the vagueness doctrine “does not require ‘meticulous specificity’ from every statute . . . as language is necessarily marked by a degree of imprecision” (citations omitted)
• explaining 3 that “statute as applied to [defendant] would not be 4 unconstitutionally vague because the conduct to which the 5 statute was applied falls within the ‘core meaning’ of the 6 statute” (citing Smith, 415 U.S. at 577-78)
• statutes must be specific enough \to avoid resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).