Supreme Court· 3/27/1939

Lanzetta v. New Jersey

Citations

306 U.S. 451
59 S. Ct. 618
83 L. Ed. 888
1939 U.S. LEXIS 717

How courts have described this case

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

holding statute unconstitutionally vague for failure to condemn a specific act or omission
“If on its face the challenged provision is repugnant to the due process clause, specification of details of the offense intended to be charged would not serve to validate it”
statute making it unlawful to become a “gangster” held unconstitutionally vague, inasmuch as it allowed convictions of persons “known to be a member” of a gang
“No one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes. All are entitled to be informed as to what the State commands or forbids.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Butler, Frankfurter

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

1,004 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.