Thelen v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a noise ordinance prohibiting “unnecessary,” “unusual,” and “annoying” noises was unconstitutionally vague because it depended upon the “individualized sensitivity of each complainant”
• relying on Coates v. Cincinnati, the court invalidated on vagueness grounds the proscription of specified conduct which “annoys” others
• relying on Coates v. Cincinnati , the court invalidated on vagueness grounds the proscription of specified conduct which \annoys\ others
• noting use of vague and subjective terms such as “unnecessary,” “unusual,” and “annoying” in noise ordinance renders ordinance unconstitutional
• noting use of vague and subjective terms such as “unnecessary,” “unusual,” and “annoying” in noise ordinance renders ordinance unconstitutional
• due process requires criminal laws to be sufficiently specific so as to give men of common intelligence fair warning that the conduct they are contemplating is unlawful

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).