State v. Rung

How courts have described this case

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

• “The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement”
• “The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”
• “Various state courts considering statutes similar to § 28–320.02 have also rejected First Amendment challenges on the basis that speech to entice a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity is not speech protected by the First Amendment”
• “Various state courts considering statutes similar to § 28–320.02 have also rejected First Amendment challenges on the basis that speech to entice a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity is not speech protected by the First Amendment”
• “Various state courts considering statutes similar to § 28–320.02 have also rejected First Amendment challenges on the basis that speech to entice a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity is not speech protected by the First Amendment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).