Minn. R. Civ. It will be sufficient if the findings of fact and conclusions of law are stated orally and recorded in open court following the close of the evidence or appear in an opinion or memorandum of decision filed by the court or in an accompanying memorandum. Although the trial court did not make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law in its order, the court made findings and conclusions in paragraph form in its accompanying memorandum as permitted by Minn. R. Civ. The town's argument is confusing because it mixes together two separate concepts that apply when an ordinance is challenged as impermissibly vague. The doctrine of vagueness is embodied in the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Due process incorporates notions of fair notice or warning.
Under the vagueness doctrine, an ordinance may be challenged on the basis that the ordinance is facially unconstitutional or that it is unconstitutional as applied. Facial vagueness sufficient to violate due process only results when no reasonable interpretation consistent with the purpose of the statute can be advanced. In contrast, to prevail on a claim that an ordinance is unconstitutional as applied, it is only necessary to show that the ordinance is impermissibly vague as applied to the individual who challenges the ordinance. Martinson asserted both a facial challenge and a claim that the ordinance is unconstitutional as applied to her. If the town means to argue that the vagueness doctrine is inapplicable because no criminal penalties will be imposed as a result of this civil action, we disagree.