Legal Opinion
State v. Doe
Idaho Supreme Court
Decided March 26, 2010No. 36606PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
J. JONES, Justice.
John Doe appeals the district court’s holding that Wendell City Ordinance No. 442 is not facially unconstitutional. We affirm.
I
Facts and Procedural History
John Doe, a minor, was a passenger in a vehicle stopped at 1:30 a.m. for a traffic violation. Doe was supposed to be staying at a friend’s house, but sneaked out with two friends to look for a party. Doe was cited for a violation of Wendell City Ordinance No. 442 (“Ordinance”), a curfew ordinance, which provides:
SECTION 1. CURFEW HOURS, VIOLATIONS, AND EXCEPTIONS
A. NIGHT TIME CURFEW: It shall be unlawful for any minor…
2Cases cited51 opinions
- Santosky v. KramerSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- United States v. SalernoSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- United States v. O'BrienSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- State v. Azad Haji AbdullahIdaho Supreme Court · 2015
- Umeka Lewis v. John J. Jaeger, Robert E. Boge, and the City of DubuqueSupreme Court of Iowa · 2012
- Campbell v. Parkway Surgery Center, LLCIdaho Supreme Court · 2015
- State v. Michael Jay FreitasIdaho Court of Appeals · 2014
- State v. SanchezIdaho Supreme Court · 2019
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.