What is the test for constitutional validity of a statute requiring the doing of an act?

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.)

Other Questions


What is the test for constitutional validity of a criminal statute when the statute is too vague? (California, United States of America)
Does the placement of C.C. 1190 of the Criminal Code constitute a constitutional error requiring reversal unless lack of prejudice is shown beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
In what circumstances can localities proceed to enforce a statute of doubtful constitutionality by disobeying the statute? (California, United States of America)
When harmonizing two statutes relating to the same subject, can a particular or specific statute take precedence over a conflicting general statute? (California, United States of America)
Does the placement of C.C. 1190 of the Criminal Code constitute a constitutional error requiring reversal unless lack of prejudice is shown beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Is an agreement requiring only that the witness testify fully and truthfully valid valid? (California, United States of America)
Is it necessary or required that the rule of Adams v. Murakami is not constitutionally required? (California, United States of America)
Does a state statute requiring an attorney to disclose certain terms under which his services can be advertised require that the attorney's advertising must contain a disclaimer? (California, United States of America)
Is a Local Rule that seeks to relax statutory requirements in section 664.6.4 of the California Constitution valid? (California, United States of America)
Is a plea agreement requiring only that a witness testify fully and truthfully valid valid? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.