Grayned v. City of Rockford

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the phrase “tends to disturb” the peace in a city noise ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague
• holding that a statute’s words, even when “marked by flexibility and reasonable breadth, rather than meticulous specificity,” are clear based on “what the ordinance as a whole prohibits”
• holding that statute need only give fair warning of the types of conduct proscribed in light of common understanding and practices
• holding that crux of time, place, and manner analysis is “whether the manner of [banned] expression is basically incompatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time”
• holding that an anti-noise ordinance was “marked by flexibility” but that it was “clear” what the “ordinance as a whole prohibits”
• concluding that the term “adjacent” in a criminal ordinance set “a sufficiently fixed place” in which certain actions were prohibited

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).