would “apply [his] own judgment” to determine how close two ORC Units must be to constitute an ORC); id. at 187:19-188:3 (an individual wanting to know if he is on an ORC for “recreational purposes” could ask White, who would interpret the Ordinance to answer).) Plaintiffs also argue that any “ad hoc ‘clarification’ of the Planning and Zoning Board suggested by Defendant invites arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” (Pis.’ Resp. to Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. 3 n. 1.) Legislation may be unconstitutionally vague on its face if “it encourages arbitrary enforcement by failing to describe with sufficient particularity what a suspect must do in order to satisfy the statute.” Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 361, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983); see also id. at 358, 103 S.Ct. 1855 (<HOLDING>). As discussed above, the zoning restrictions
recognizing doctrine recognizing that the requirement that a legislature estab lish minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement is the most important aspect of the vagueness doctrine holding that the law of the case doctrine posits that when a court decides upon a rule of law that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case holding that federal common law is the law that would govern in the absence of the warsaw convention recognizing that the legislature has the sole power of enacting law