Supreme Court of Vermont· 3/22/1996

State v. Read

Citations

680 A.2d 944
165 Vt. 141
1996 Vt. LEXIS 44

How courts have described this case

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

noting that the Court will presume that the Legislature makes changes in the law in light of relevant judicial precedents and with knowledge of prior legislation on the same subject
noting that court is obligated to narrow and limit statute to avoid constitutional infirmities
determining that the provisions relating to speech in the Vermont Constitution mirror those in the U.S. Constitution and that defendant failed to demonstrate any more expansive free speech rights in the Vermont Constitution
“Limiting punishment to those who use abusive language with the requisite mental state is sufficient to save the statute from a vagueness or overbreadth challenge.”
“[T]his Court is obligated to narrow and limit the statute in light of the protections guaranteed by the United States . . . constitutionf].”
abusive language provision of 13 VS.A. § 1026(3) is properly construed as proscribing only fighting words

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Allen, Gibson, Dooley, Morse, Johnson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

48 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

45 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.