Lanzetta v. New Jersey
Supreme Court of the United States
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Butler
By this appeal we are called on to decide whether, by reason of vagueness and uncertainty, a recent enactment of New Jersey, § 4, c. 155, Laws 1934, is repugnant to the due_/process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is as follows: “Any person not engaged in any lawful occupation, known to be a member of any gang consisting of two or more persons, who has been convicted at least three times of being a disorderly person, or who has been convicted ,of any crime in this or in any other State, is declared to be a gangster . . ,” Every violation is punishable by fine not exceeding $10,000 or…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Connally v. General Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Stromberg v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Lovell v. City of GriffinSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Nash v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1921
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1,384 opinions
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Johnson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2015
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Kolender v. LawsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
1,379 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.