Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.
- Decided
- March 3, 1982
- Docket
- 80-1681
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,694 timesAbrogated on other grounds (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: abrogated on other grounds (not yet verified) · Dept of Environment Great Lakes & Energy v. Brookside Crossing LLC
What later courts said
- holding that in a vagueness challenge “a federal court must, of course, consider any limiting construction that a state court or enforcement agency has proffered” — Richard Cooey v. Ralph Coyle, Warden (2002)
- recognizing that businesses seek to clarify the meaning of a regulation by inquiring of an administrative agency, or by resort to an administrative process — Texas Department of Insurance v. Reconveyance Services, Inc. (2007)
- holding that "administrative regulation will often suffice to clarify a standard with an otherwise uncertain scope" — South Carolina Medical Association v. Tommy G. Thompson (2003)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*491] Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents a pre-enforcement facial challenge to a drug paraphernalia ordinance on the ground that it is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The ordinance in question requires a business to obtain a license if it sells any items that are “designed or marketed for use with illegal cannabis or drugs.” Village of Hoffman Estates Ordinance No. 969-1978. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the ordinance is vague on its face. 639 F. 2d 373 (1981). We noted probable jurisdiction, 452 U. S. 904 (1981), and now reverse.
I
Cite this
Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (1982)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.