Smith v. Florida Department of Corrections

875 So. 2d 683, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 7052, 2004 WL 1123367
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 21, 2004·No. No. 1D03-2694·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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

875 So. 2d 683 (Smith v. Florida Department of Corrections) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gray v. D & J INDUSTRIES, INC.
875 So. 2d 683 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)