1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Wis.2d
  4. 28 Wis.2d
  5. 28 Wis.2d 109 (1965)
 

STATE v. GIVENS

28 Wis.2d 109 (1965)

STATE, Respondent, v. GIVENS, Appellant. SAME, Respondent, v. WEAVER, Appellant. SAME, Respondent, v. TAYLOR, Appellant. SAME, Respondent, v. JOHNSON, Appellant. SAME, Respondent, v. BERNDT, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

June 25, 1965.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

For the appellants there was a brief by Barbee & Jacobson of Milwaukee, and oral argument by Thomas M. Jacobson and Lloyd A. Barbee.

For the respondent the cause was argued by Aladin A. DeBrozzo, deputy district attorney of Milwaukee county, with whom on the brief were Bronson C. La Follette, attorney general, and Hugh R. O'Connell, district attorney.

GORDON, J.

Vagueness of Statute.

The appellants argue that the disorderly conduct statute is too vague to be enforced. Sec. 947.01 (1), Stats., quoted above, sets forth six specific types of conduct which are proscribed; this covers conduct that is "violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, [or] unreasonably loud;" thereafter the statute contains a so-called "catchall" clause which prohibits "otherwise...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases