assembly in whole or in part.” People v. Weinberg, 6 Mich.App. 345, 149 N.W.2d 248, 251 (1967) (internal quotation marks omitted); id. at 252-53 (upholding a conviction under the law on the grounds that the defendants “hindered and interfered” with a savings and loan association’s “right to conduct [its] business in an orderly, quiet, decorous manner” when they sat on the floor and were “requested to leave” but “refused to do so”). Another case upholds a conviction where the evidence showed that the defendants had “failed to leave the building when requested” and that their presence interfered with janitorial service. People v. Mash, 45 Mich.App. 459, 206 N.W.2d 767, 770 (1973). And both of these cases uphold the statute in the face of constitutional challenges. Mash, 206 N.W.2d at 770 (<HOLDING>); Weinberg, 149 N.W.2d at 255-56 (holding that
holding c4c factor void for vagueness unless limiting construction was given holding residual clause of acca void for vagueness holding that va code  182603 is not void for vagueness holding that   750170 is not void for vagueness nor constitutionally infirm for overbreadth holding a law is void for vagueness when it offers no standard of conduct that was possible to know emphasis added