Legal Opinion

State v. Givens

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 25, 1965PublishedCited by 54 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*115Gordon, J.

Vagueness of Statute.

The appellants argue that the disorderly conduct statute is too vague to be enforced. Sec. 947.01 (1), Stats., quoted above, sets forth six specific types of conduct which are proscribed; this covers conduct that is “violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, [or] unreasonably loud thereafter the statute contains a so-called “catchall” clause which prohibits “otherwise disorderly conduct” which tends to “provoke a disturbance.”

It has often been held that a criminal statute must be definite enough to inform those who are subject to it as to what acts will…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Connally v. General Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. Cox v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  3. Lanzetta v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1939
  4. Edwards v. South CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  5. Jordan v. De GeorgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1951

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

3Cited by54 opinions

  1. Alegata v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1967
  2. State v. ZwickerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
  3. Ralph Ovadal v. City of Madison, Wisconsin, Richard Williams, Chris Paulson, and Patrick GradyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2005
  4. City of Madison v. BaumannWisconsin Supreme Court · 1991
  5. State v. AlfonsiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967

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

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

Powered by the Exa API