Arizona Supreme Court· 10/22/1970

State v. Starsky

Citations

475 P.2d 943
106 Ariz. 329
1970 Ariz. LEXIS 424

How courts have described this case

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

“one may be guilty of disturbing the peace [under a similarly worded statute] if he engages in... violent conduct”
in upholding disturbing the peace statute, our supreme court stated it was “inconceivable” that the First Amendment protected anyone’s right to “wilfully and maliciously traverse the peace and quiet of his fellow citizens”
in upholding disturbing the peace statute, our supreme court stated it was “inconceivable” that the First Amendment protected anyone’s right to “wilfully and maliciously traverse the peace and quiet of his fellow citizens”
due process does not require “specific definitions of each term which would no doubt necessitate further definitions of the definitions, ad infinitum—so that each section of the criminal code would be a thesaurus of definitions, synonyms, and examples”
due process does not require “specific definitions of each term which would no doubt necessitate further definitions of the definitions, ad infinitum — so that each section of the criminal code would be a thesaurus of definitions, synonyms, and examples”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: McFarland, Lockwood, Struckmeyer, Udall, Hays

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

16 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.