Teague - Supreme Court of Texas

accordance with the contentions of the City and State would render it so vague, indefinite
and uncertain as to be in violation of the due process chum of the United States and
Texas Constitutions. The law is clear h t a statute is void for vagueness and a violation
of due grocess if men and women of common intelligence must guess at the meaning of
the statute. Old Peurborn DM. Co. v. Seagram-Distillers Corp., 299 U.S .I83 (1 936);
Keyishian v. Board of Regenbs, 3 85 U.S. 589 (1 967). Due process is violated when
persons of common inteIligence are compeUed to guess at a law's meaning and
applicability or when there is a substantial risk of miscalculation by those whose ads are
subject to regulation. XB. Advertising Inc. v. Sign Bd OfAppeab of City ofCmoIIturm,
883 S.W.2d 443,448 (Tex App.-Wand 1994, writ hied).
E. The opinion of the court of a d does not abro~ate the statuto~ nat)eaI
. .
ess for a dcipalitv's demolrtr on order throa the UDJA. rather the
samte - issue,
The State contends that the court of appeals has supphkd the statutory review
process for demolition orders through the use of the Uniform DecIaratory Judgment Act.
Once again, this fa& to understand the dual claims for relief made in Teague's pleadings.
W~th nothing more than a curmy look at the opinion of the court of appeals, it is clear
that it did not rely on the UDiA in any manner in reaching its decision. To the contrary,
the court specifidly held that Teague complied with the jurisdictional requirements of
section 214.0012, and as such it need not evaluate his UDJA coflstitutionall arguments.
Teap, 190 S.W.3d at 820-82 1. Therefote, my alleged fear of the substitution of the