Citation network
Chicago Vs. Morales
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 10, 1999
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 41 (1999) October Term, 1998 Syllabus City of Chicago V. MoralesSearch
-
sweep violates the requirement that a legislature establish minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement. Kolender v. LawsonSearch
-
has no authority to construe the language of a state statute more narrowly than the State's highest court. See Smiley v. KansasSearch
-
Supreme Court is correct that General Order 92-4 is not a sufficient limitation on police discretion. See Smith v. GoguenSearch
-
for the police and public that are sufficient to guard against the arbitrary deprivation of liberty. Ko lender v. LawsonSearch
-
See, e. g., Kent v. DullesSearch
-
is not an enactment that simply regulates business behavior and contains a scienter requirement. See Hoffman Estates v. FlipsideSearch
-
Inc., 455 U. S. 489 , 499. It is a criminal law that contains no mens rea requirement, see Colautti v. FranklinSearch
-
citizen adequate notice of what is forbidden and what is permitted, it is impermissibly vague. See, e. g., Coates v. CincinnatiSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
notice requirement's purpose is to enable the ordinary citizen to conform his or her conduct to the law. See Lanzetta v. NewSearch
-
however, cannot impose a limiting construction that a state supreme court has declined to adopt. See, e. g., Kolender v. LawsonSearch
-
U. S. 352 , 355-356, n. 4. The Illinois Supreme Court misapplied this Court's precedents, particularly Papachristou v. JacksonvilleSearch
-
represents an exercise of unlimited discretion, then the ordinance is invalid in all its applications. See Lanzetta v. NewSearch
-
insufficient notice, but because it does not provide sufficient minimal standards to guide the police. See Coates v. CincinnatiSearch
-
of the general order in August 1992 and stopped enforcing it in December 1995, when it was held invalid in Chicago v. YoukhanaSearch
-
in the ordinance drew no distinction between innocent conduct and conduct calculated 9 Chicago v. YoukhanaSearch
-
of the Illinois Constitution. Id., at 59a. 10 Chicago v. YoukhanaSearch
-
Ill. App. 3d 101, 660 N. E. 2d 34 (1995). 11 Chicago v. RamseySearch
-
Nos. 1-93-4125 et al. (Ill. App., Dec. 29, 1995), App. to Pet. for Cert. 39a. 12 Chicago v. MoralesSearch
-
Nos. 1-93-4039 et al. (Ill. App., Dec. 29, 1995), App. to Pet. for Cert. 37a. 13 Chicago v. YoukhanaSearch
-
Broadrick v. OklaSearch
-
the police and public that are sufficient to guard against the arbitrary deprivation of liberty interests. Kolender v. LawsonSearch
-
that are designed to demonstrate a group's support of, or opposition to, a particular point of view. Cf. Clark v. CommunitySearch
-
Gregory v. ChicagoSearch
-
that our cases have recognized. See Dallas v. StanglinSearch
-
protected by the Constitution. Williams v. FearsSearch
-
see also Papachristou v. JacksonvilleSearch
-
unchallenged in this country until attorneys became widely available to the indigent following our decision in Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
That statute, with some exceptions, set a speed limit of 15 miles per hour. See Christy v. ElliottSearch
-
protected liberty alone would suffice to support a facial challenge under the overbreadth doctrine. Cf. Aptheker v. SecretarySearch
-
Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. DanforthSearch
-
See Hoffman Estates v. FlipsideSearch
-
U. S. 489 , 499 (1982). It is a criminal law that contains no mens rea requirement, see Colautti v. FranklinSearch
-
second, it may authorize and even encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. See Kolender v. LawsonSearch
-
as a prudential doctrine and not one mandated by Article III of the Constitution. See Secretary of State of Md. v. JosephSearch
-
City of Revere v. MassachusettsSearch
-
which is doubtful-state courts need not apply prudential notions of standing created by this Court. See ASARCO Inc. v. KadishSearch
-
Chicago v. YoukhanaSearch
-
et al. (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Sept. 29, 1993), App. to Pet. for Cert. 48a-49a. 25 See, e. g., Tacoma v. LuveneSearch
-
People v. SuperiorSearch
-
Lanzetta v. NewSearch
-
order to disperse, then the Chicago ordinance becomes indistinguishable from the law we held invalid in Shuttlesworth v. BirminghamSearch
-
U. S. 87 , 90 26 See, e. g., State v. RichardSearch
-
Brief for Petitioner 31. 28 In this way, the ordinance differs from the statute upheld in Colten v. KentuckySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial