Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Immelt

Washington Supreme Court

Decided October 27, 2011No. 83343-5Published

1DissentJ.M. Johnson, J.

¶65 (dissenting) — Both the majority opinion and Chief Justice Madsen’s dissent fail to properly analyze the constitutional overbreadth challenge to Snohomish County Code (SCC) 10.01.040 and .080(3) (horn ordinance). I write separately to correct these analytical mistakes. Further, because the horn ordinance does not violate Helen Immelt’s free speech rights, I respectfully dissent.

A. Overbreadth

¶66 Reasonably construed, the county’s horn ordinance is not unconstitutionally overbroad. The analysis of an overbreadth claim under article I, section 5 of the Washing*31ton Constitution parallels the…

2Cases cited37 opinions

  1. Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. United States v. O'BrienSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  3. Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
  4. Ward v. Rock Against RacismSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  5. Dombrowski v. PfisterSupreme Court of the United States · 1965

32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API