California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Tires Unlimited v. Superior Court, 180 Cal.App.3d 974, 226 Cal.Rptr. 25 (Cal. App. 1986):
It is true that a statute requiring the doing of an act will not pass constitutional muster if persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. (See Cranston v. City of Richmond (1985) 40 Cal.3d 755, 762-763, 221 Cal.Rptr. 779, 710 P.2d 845.) "However, reasonable certainty is all that is required. A statute will not be held void for vagueness if any reasonable and practical construction can be given its language.... [Citations.] A statute will be upheld if its terms may be made reasonably certain by reference to its legislative history or purpose. [Citations.]" (In re Marriage of Walton (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 108, 116 , 104 Cal.Rptr. 472.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.