Legal Opinion
State v. Pauling
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided September 17, 2001No. 46492-2-IPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
31 P.3d 47 (2001)
STATE of Washington, Respondent,
v.
Molotov F. PAULING, Appellant.
No. 46492-2-I.
Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1.
September 17, 2001.
Thomas Kummerow, Washington Appellate Project, Seattle, for Appellant.
Seth A. Fine, Snohomish County Deputy Prosecutor, Everett, for Respondent.
GROSSE, J.
A statute that defines the word "threat" to include the communication of information that is not inherently wrong or unlawful sweeps too broadly to withstand constitutional challenge. Washington's extortion statute is overbroad because it is not limited to wrongful threats and does not…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Thornhill v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- City of Houston v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1975
- State v. RobertsonOregon Supreme Court · 1982
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. E.J.Y.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2002
- State v. PaulingWashington Supreme Court · 2003
- State v. PaulingWashington Supreme Court · 2003
- State v. EJYCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002