Hoester v. Sammelmann

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “[t]he necessary specificity need not be contained in the statute itself, but rather, the statute in question may be read in the context of related statutes, prior decisions, or generally accepted usage” (citation omitted)
• required specificity need not be contained in statute itself but may be determined in context of related statutes, prior decisions or generally accepted usage
• facial attack warranted only where vagueness claim implicates fundamental right
• addressing constitutional claim in interest of judicial economy

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).