by the Government of New Jersey

Name: State v. Palendrano — Opinion of the Court
Author: by the Government of New Jersey

State v. Palendrano — Opinion of the Court (1972)

Summary

“State v. Palendrano — Opinion of the Court”, published in 1972, is a work by by the Government of New Jersey. It explores elements such as common scold, offense and Disorderly Persons Act.

Quotes from State v. Palendrano — Opinion of the Court (by the Government of New Jersey)

by the Government of New Jersey, State v. Palendrano — Opinion of the Court (1972)

“ A Common Scold is a troublesome and angry woman, who, by brawling and wrangling among her neighbors, breaks the public peace, increases discord, and becomes a nuisance to the neighborhood. At common law, common brawler or common scold meant a person of an habitually quarrelsome, noisy, and wrangling nature, although brawler denoted something harsher than scold, namely anger, loud outcries and tumult.
A peculiar feature of the offense of being a common scold has been said to be that it reduces woman to a mere thing, to a nuisance, and does not consider her as a person. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

by the Government of New Jersey, State v. Palendrano — Opinion of the Court (1972)

“ The offense does not consist of a single act, but in an habitual course of conduct; therefore, the element of continuity is essential, and there must be a habit or practice of scolding. It is not necessary, however, that the scolding be done in anger or turbulence. While a common scold may be indictable as a common nuisance, the offense of being a common scold or a common brawler was indictable at common law. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

by the Government of New Jersey, State v. Palendrano — Opinion of the Court (1972)

“ There is not a rule of the common law in force today that has not evolved from some earlier rule of common law, gradually in some instances, more suddenly in others, leaving the common law of today when compared with the common law of centuries ago as different as day is from night. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

by the Government of New Jersey, State v. Palendrano — Opinion of the Court (1972)

“ Against the background of these constitutional guidelines, can it be said that there is easily understood, recognizable conduct for which one may be prosecuted as a Common Scold. There is not and never has been a legislative definition of the offense. "Common Scold" does not appear in any law ever enacted by the duly elected representatives of the people. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

by the Government of New Jersey, State v. Palendrano — Opinion of the Court (1972)

“ We may well doubt the right to establish the whipping-post and the pillory in States where they were never recognized as instruments of punishment, or in States whose constitutions, revised since public opinion had banished them have forbidden cruel and unusual punishments. In such States the public sentiment must be regarded as having condemned them as "cruel", and any punishment which, if ever employed at all, has become altogether obsolete, must certainly be looked upon as "unusual". ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

by the Government of New Jersey, State v. Palendrano — Opinion of the Court (1972)

“ II It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

by the Government of New Jersey, State v. Palendrano — Opinion of the Court (1972)

“ It is to be doubted the corporeal punishment for crimes was ever the law of this State after its declaration of independence from England and adoption of its first Constitution (1776) . See "The Whipping Post and Some of Its Uses", 15 N.J.L.J. 356.↑ State v. Fuller, 42 N.J.L.J. 149 (Oyer and Terminer 1919) indicates an indictment charging the defendant with being a Common Scold was returned as late as 1919. A motion to quash was denied, relying on State v. Baker, supra. That reliance seems misplaced since no mention was made of the broad Disorderly Persons Act passed in 1898.↑ State v. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

by the Government of New Jersey, State v. Palendrano — Opinion of the Court (1972)

“ City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 92 S.C.t. 839, 31 L. Ed. 2d 110 (1972) a "vagrancy" ordinance succumbed to the vagueness charge.
The void-for-vagueness doctrine has been applied to our Disorderly Persons Act prohibiting "loud and offensive or profane or indecent language" in a public place ( N.J.S.A. 2A:170-29) . In Rosenfeld v. New Jersey, 408 U.S. 901, 92 S.C.t. 2479, 33 L. Ed. 2d 321 (Decided June 26, 1972) the United States Supreme Court without opinion vacated the judgment of conviction of defendant on the basis of Cohen v. ”

by the Government of New Jersey

Summary

Quotes from State v. Palendrano — Opinion of the Court (by the Government of New Jersey)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature