Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Hendrickson

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 21, 1999No. 73-75 W.D. Appeal Dkt. 1997PublishedCited by 46 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

NIGRO, Justice.

The issue before the Court is whether Pennsylvania’s statute defining the offense of harassment by communication or address, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5504, is unconstitutionally overbroad or vague. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the statute is constitutionally sound. We thus affirm the decision of the Superior Court.

The relevant facts are undisputed. Appellant sent documents by telecopy, or “fax,” to about forty people at their offices. Appellant sent many of the documents repeatedly so that altogether, the forty individuals received about four hundred faxes. The…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  3. Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  4. Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
  5. Kolender v. LawsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983

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

3Cited by46 opinions

  1. Pennsylvanians Against Gambling Expansion Fund, Inc. v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  2. Com., Dept. of Transp. v. McCaffertySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  3. Commonwealth v. MockaitisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  4. Commonwealth v. DavidsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  5. Commonwealth v. AponteSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004

41 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