Smith v. Florida Department of Corrections

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Smith v. Florida Department of Corrections

875 So. 2d 683, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 7052, 2004 WL 1123367

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 21, 2004

DocketNo. 1D03-2694

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 875 So. 2d 683 (Smith v. Florida Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Florida Department of Corrections, 875 So. 2d 683, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 7052, 2004 WL 1123367 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the trial court’s denial of his complaint for declaratory judgment challenging the constitutionality of the term “disorderly conduct” contained in Fla. Admin. Code R. 33-601.314, § 9-17. We affirm the trial court’s ruling because [684]*684the term is not vague or overbroad. See Smith v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 799 So.2d 319, 319 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (holding that the prohibition against fighting in Fla. Admin. Code R. 33-601.314, § 2-4 was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad); D.L.B. v. State, 707 So.2d 844, 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (holding that statute prohibiting “affray” was not impermissibly vague because ordinary people could understand the meaning of “affray”).

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH, POLSTON and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the trial court’s denial of his complaint for declaratory judgment challenging the constitutionality of the term “disorderly conduct” contained in Fla. Admin. Code R. 33-601.314, § 9-17. We affirm the trial court’s ruling because [684]*684the term is not vague or overbroad. See Smith v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 799 So.2d 319, 319 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (holding that the prohibition against fighting in Fla. Admin. Code R. 33-601.314, § 2-4 was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad); D.L.B. v. State, 707 So.2d 844, 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (holding that statute prohibiting “affray” was not impermissibly vague because ordinary people could understand the meaning of “affray”).

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH, POLSTON and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

875 So. 2d 683, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 7052, 2004 WL 1123367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-florida-department-of-corrections-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack