Opinion ID: 2545116
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Constitutionality of the statute on its face

Text: ¶ 11. Facial invalidity is strong medicine that has been employed sparingly, as a last resort. [17] The complainant must demonstrate that the law is impermissibly vague in all its applications. [18] Comprehending the nature of the conduct prohibited by the Price-Gouging Statute requires neither an advanced degree from the Wharton Business School nor an accounting degree from one of our fine public universities. The alleged conduct being prosecuted is the raising of prices after the declaration of a state of emergency, absent justification. The baseline price provided by the statute is whatever was being charged in the same market area ... at or immediately before the state of emergency. At means [o]n or near the time or age of.... [19] Immediately is defined as 1. Without intermediary: directly. [20] Before means [i]n the past: earlier. [21] The absence of perfect clarity and precise guidance does not render this provision unconstitutionally vague. ¶ 12. Similarly, we affirm the chancellor's decision that the phrase same market area is not void on its face. The chancellor accurately surmised that the terms market area or `trade area' would be clear to any businessman who wants to charge competitive prices and attract customers. Based on the aforementioned analysis, the chancellor erred in holding that the Price-Gouging Statute did not pass constitutional muster on its face.