Legal Opinion
State v. Ferguson
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided February 13, 1991No. Nos. 90-514 and 90-286PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAlice Robie Resnick, J.
Preliminarily, we must resolve the question of appellee’s standing to challenge the statute for vagueness. It is well-established that an individual who engages in conduct which is clearly proscribed by a statute cannot complain of the vagueness of a law as applied to others. Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. (1982), 455 U.S. 489, 495; Broadrick v. Oklahoma (1973), 413 U.S. 601, 610 (a person to whom a statute may constitutionally be applied will not be heard to challenge the statute on the ground that it may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to others, in other…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- State v. AndersonOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- State v. PetersDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1988
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. TaubmanOhio Court of Appeals · 1992
- Ohio Am. Health Care, Inc. v. Ohio Bd. of NursingOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
- Trish's Café & Catering, Inc. v. Ohio Department of HealthOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
- Michigan Wolfdog Ass'n, Inc. v. St. Clair CountyDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2000
- State v. FergusonOhio Court of Appeals · 1991
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.