Marsh v. National Lock Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting argument that a lobbying disclosure law “must be invalidated because there is not a sufficient legislative record to justify the legislation.”
• declining to accept argument made by plaintiffs concerning vagueness, because it was based on too “expansive” reading of statute
• noting “some weighing” of whether particular activities may come within purview of disclosure statute “is true of all types of disclosure laws,” given that such statutes need not “cover every conceivable set of circumstances that may arise under” them
• court could not find that lobby law was designed to reach “any sort of indirect activity which might ultimately impact upon the governmental decision-making process”
• courts should not strain to find unconstitutional applications, or base overbreadth on other than proven overreaching
• courts are not “roving” commissions “charged with invalidating laws by straining to find unconstitutional applications”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).