Legal Opinion
Brandt v. City of Westminster
District Court, D. Colorado
Decided March 19, 2018No. Civil Action No. 16–cv–1356–WJM–CBSPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*12661. Standing
The Supreme Court has long recognized that a criminal defendant may bring a facial challenge against statute or ordinance under which he or she is charged, even if the statute would not be invalid as applied to his or her own conduct. See Gooding v. Wilson , 405 U.S. 518 520-22, 92 S.Ct. 1103, 31 L.Ed.2d 408 (1972) ("Although a statute may be neither vague, overbroad, nor otherwise invalid as applied to the conduct charged against a particular defendant, he is permitted to raise its vagueness or unconstitutional overbreadth as applied to others * * * since the otherwise continued…
2Cases cited65 opinions
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Mullenix v. LunaSupreme Court of the United States · 2015
60 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Cronick v. City of Colorado Springs, TheDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 2023
- Hall v. NavarreDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2023
- Minter v. City of Aurora, ColoradoDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 2022
- Sexton v. City of Colorado SpringsDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 2021
- Sexton v. City of Colorado Springs, ColoradoDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 2021