Skip to main content

People v. Trantham

Citations

  • 161 Cal. App. 3d 1
  • 208 Cal. Rptr. 535

How courts have described this case

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

  • rejecting facial vagueness challenge regarding term \loiter\ because the statute was \simply a park closure law\ banning presence
  • rejecting facial vagueness challenge regarding term “loiter” because the statute was “simply a park closure law” banning presence
  • upholding, as reasonable, late night park closure regulation and finding “its proscription against anyone entering, remaining, staying, or loitering in any park during the late night hours ... is not void for vagueness or overbreadth”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cooperman

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

69 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

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.