Legal Opinion
United States v. Forbes
District Court, D. Colorado
Decided November 20, 1992No. 1:92-cr-00105PublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
BABCOCK, District Judge.
Defendants move to dismiss this action contending that the definition of a controlled substance analogue as applied here is unconstitutionally vague. 21 U.S.C. § 802(32)(A). Hearing on the motion was held on November 19, 1992. Because the definition of “analogue” as applied here provides neither fair warning nor effective safeguards against arbitrary enforcement, it is void for vagueness. Defendants’ motion is granted and this action is dismissed.
Defendants are charged in a four cotint indictment with distribution of alphaethyl-tryptamine…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Connally v. General Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- United States v. James R. TurcotteCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2005
- United States v. Mark Fisher, United States of America v. Devon Sutton, A.K.A. Devon Daniel Sutton, United States of America v. Arthur RobertsonCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2002
- United States v. Richard "Bird" Hodge Richard Hodge, United States of America v. Akil GreigCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2003
- United States v. Thomas William WashamCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2003
- United States v. Karl Hofstatter (92-1836) and Michael Griffor (92-1805)Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1993
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.