State v. MacHholz

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that a statute to be overturned as overbroad only if the over-breadth is substantial
• noting that a defendant can facially challenge a criminal statute even though the defendant’s speech is unprotected by the First Amendment
• indicating that a statute may be facially overbroad only “if it prohibits constitutionally protected activity”
• noting that no constitutional question is raised if the First Amendment is not implicated
• holding that a facially overbroad statute is void
• discussing how the potential “chilling, effect” of a facially overbroad statute on constitutionally protected speech justifies recognizing standing to make a facial constitutional challenge, even if the litigant’s own activities are not constitutionally protected

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).