1. Birbrower
http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/birbrower.html
Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon &
Frank v Superior Court (1998)17 Cal.4th
119 , 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 304; 949 P 2nd
wherein corrupt Chinese idiot Diane
Yu loses even though she has a Chinese
judge. This case may not mention overbreadth
but the state bar act is way overbroad.
2. Shuttlesworth
v Birmingham
http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5409.html
is, of course, a superb overbreadth
case proving that actions as well
as speech trigger overbreadth protection.
3. Bates
v Arizona
http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/bates.html
(1977) 53 L Ed 2d 810. Legal Clinic
Advertised. Subject: Overbreadth and
1stamendment. The 6th most pertinent
case here.
4. Condon,
Estate of
http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/condon.html
(__1998) 65 Cal App 4th 1138, 76 Cal
Rptr 2d 922. For years the bar would
not permit unlicensed lawyers to be
heard if they attempted to collect
money for fees. These lawyers took
the bar to task and won! The case
is dictatated by the . . .
5. Baird
v State Bar of Arizona (1970)
27 L Ed 2d 639, Superb
Annotation @953 of 27 Lawyer's Edition
2nd . Subject: Overbreadth.
Bar applicant refused to answer question
in bar application regarding his past
to age 16 regarding membership in
organizations advocating overthrow
of government. Note that Judge McMecarch
or whomever in Mariposa county refused
to take the loyalty oath part of the
oath specifically quoted in the California
constitution.
6. Cohen
v California
http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/fuckthedraft.html
(1971) 30 L Ed 2d 124. "Fuck
the draft" written on the back
of jacket in court hallway. Overbreadth
was the basis of this decision.
7. Hackin
v Lockwood (1966) 361 F2d
499. District court held that Arizona's
ABA requirement is constitutional.
The court skirted the issue by holding
that requiring graduation from an
accredited school is constitutional
- avoiding completely the issue that
ABA requirements were instituted at
the behest of Carnegie, a paradigm
robber baron, and foisted upon the
public in the age of the robber barons
with the obvious effect of promoting
corporate ficta and limiting the practice
of law and even the teaching of law
to the wealthy. We can see the folly
now in retrospect with the multitude
of non-ABA schools in California.
8. Hackin
v Arizona
http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/hackin.html
(1967)19 L. Ed. 2d 347; 389 U.S. 143;
88 S. Ct. 325. Overbreadth case. There
was no written majority opinion. Douglas's
strong and cogent dissent shames the
majority in this case. Lawyer Hackin
having been denied admission to the
Arizona bar nonetheless defended a
guy who was denied counsel by the
court because the proceeding was,
hypertechnically, civil in nature,
habeas corpus. Hackin stepped forward
where bar volunteers failed to do
so, defended the otherwise defenseless,
and was prosecuted for practicing
without a license. Maybe he failed
to write a good brief - although he
persuaded Justice Douglas. Doran
v Salem Inn (1975) 45 L Ed
2d 648. Overbreadth. 3 stripper bars.
Ballet Africanus. Leading case. Joe
Redner, famous owner of the leading
stripper bar in Tampa recognized the
name of this case which I chatted
with him in Jan 2000. Redner is facing
enforcement of an overbroad statute
to stop lap dances in his night clubs.
9. Erznoznik
v City of Jacksonville
http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/erzoznik.html
( ) 45 L Ed 2d__. Overbreadth. Baby's
butt argument regarding drive in theater.
The statute was declared unconstitutional
because it was so broad as to include
the depiction of a baby's butt which
the court felt, would not be offensive
to anybody.
10. Ficker
v Curran 950 F Supp 123, Affirmed
at 119 F3d 1150. Attorney solicitation.
Overbreadth regarding bar acts regulating
attorneys. Attorney solicitation law
was held unconstitutional. Used in
my brief 3596 at page 10 which brief
is here:
http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/3596.html
11. Houston
v Hill
http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/houston.html
(1987) 96 L Ed 2d 390. Our friend
Ed Heimlich from Houston knows this
guy Ray Hill. “Pick on somebody your
own size” are the words that triggered
an illegal arrest. Overbreadth. Famous
Texan Charles Alan Wright argued this
case. "Interview" with police
as they were chasing a suspect. Defendant
said "Why don't you pick on somebody
your own size!" The statements
were not fighting words or obscenity.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of
the guy shouting at police as they
were chasing a suspect. It is okay
to be provocative. Any non-speech
was pre-empted by state statute. Extrapolation
from Houston case: With regard to
laws against attorneys speaking without
license: Any non-truth is pre-empted
by fraud statutes. Any truth is protected
by the 1st amendment. The supreme
Court said that the city "had
numerous opportunities to narrow and
has not done so." Similarly the
state bar act suffers from overbreadth
and the implied and also explicit
ambiguity of defining what constitutes
the practice of law.
12. Keyishian
v Board of Regents (1967) 17
L Ed 2d 629, 385 U.S. 589. Peddler
registration. Overbreadth. Ordinance
required solicitors to register with
the police. Ruled unconstitutional.
13. McSurely
v Ratliff (1967) 282 F Supp
848 (E.D. Ky. 1967). Anti communist
law. Raid. Court declared Kentucky's
anti sedition law unconstitutional.
Case arose from overbreadth, an unjustified
raid based on an overbroad statute.
See McSurely
v McClellan (1976) 553 F2d
1277, 1282, note 9 (D.C. Cir. 1976)(en
banc) discussing a safekeeping order
for the personal diaries and other
seized items of McSurely. The case
ordering the return of the documents
of McSurelys is McSurely v Ratliff(1968)
398 F2d 817 (6th Cir 1968). The endnotes
of In Our
Defense contain an excellent
brief regarding the search and seizure
issues in a politically motivated
raid.
Supplement: Free Speech cases are
based on Clear and Present Danger
test
14. Bridges
case decided on the day after Pearl
Harbor:
http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/bridges.html
Read about the “extremely serious
evil with extremely high imminence
test” at
http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/bridges.html
Supplement: Deprivation of License
Requires Prior Due Process; It is
a property interest.
15. In
Re Ming
http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/ming.html
469 F 2d 1353 (7th Cir. 1971)
Even federal court rules must render
due process. Disciplinary proceeding.
The Executive Committee of the United
States District Court for Northern
District of Illinois issued suspension
order, and appeal was taken. The Court
of Appeals, Pell, Circuit Judge, held
that if a conviction itself is to
be used to show commission of underlying
acts which are of such nature as to
form basis for disbarment or suspension,
conviction must have reached finality,
or at least to the extent of exhaustion
of direct appeals. In addition, the
Court held that failure to afford
hearing prior to issuing order of
suspension based on misdemeanor conviction
violated due process. Reversed. If
a conviction itself is to be used
to show commission of underlying acts
which are of such nature as to form
basis for disbarment or suspension,
conviction must have reached finality,
at least to the extent of exhaustion
of direct appeals. U.S. Dist. Ct.
Rules, N.D. Ill., General Rule 8.
District courts are free to adopt
their own local rules defining grounds
for disbarment and suspension and
the procedures to be followed; however,
such rules must meet the essential
requirements of due process. License
to practice law constitutes a type
of "new property" the divestment
of which cannot be affected without
affording substantial due process,
including the opportunity to be heard
and to confront and cross-examine
adverse witnesses. Failure to afford
hearing prior to issuing order of
suspension based on misdemeanor conviction
violated due process. [Comment by
Palaschak: What a joke! The Court
completely ignores the fact that the
practice of law being primarily speech
and writing is perhaps protected by
the first amendment!]
16. Bell
v Burson
http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/Burson.html
(1971) 26 L Ed 90, 401 US 535 State
cannot take a driver license without
hearing. Used in motion 3596 at page
3.
17. In
Re Crow
http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/crow.html
(1959) 3 L Ed 2d 1025-27. Annotation
3 L Ed 2d. Essentially overruled by
Ming. Non criminal disbarment. Attorney
disbarred in Ohio. U.S. Supreme Court
issues OSC. He responded. Douglas
dissents that they should have appoint
a committee. Annotation
re In Re Crow 3 L Ed 2d 1960-65
is excellent as usual from Lawyer’s
Edition. Douglas dissented in Hackin
also.
18. Delaware
v Prouse
http://www.lawyerdude.s5.com/prouse.html
Some lesser Leading cases regarding
Overbreadth:
19. Ashcroft
v. Free Speech Coalition, 122 S. Ct.
1389 (2002)
20. Los
Angles Police Dept. v. United Reporting
Publishing Corp., 528 U.S. 32 (1999)
21. Osborne
v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990)
22. Virginia
v. American Booksellers Association,
Inc., 484 U.S. 383 (1988)
23. Los
Angeles City Council v. Taxpayers
for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (1984)
24. Broadrick
v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973)
25. Gooding
v. WIilson, 405 U.S. 518 (1972)
Vagueness
See my vagueness page at:
Young v.
American Mini Theatres, 427 U.S. 50
(1976)
Smith v.
Goguen, 415 U.S. 566 (1974)
Graynard
v. Rockford
www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/grayned.html
, 408 U.S. 104 (1972)
Connally
v. General Construction CO., 269 U.S.
385 (1926) |