142 P.3d at 355; see also Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 (1983); Sheriff v. Burdg, 118 Nev. 853, 857, 59 P.3d 484, 486-87 (2002); Woofter v. O’Donnell, 91 Nev. 756, 762, 542 P.2d 1396, 1400 (1975). 5 Colosimo, 122 Nev. at 954, 142 P.3d at 355. 6 Williams, 118 Nev. at 546, 50 P.3d at 1122; see also Colosimo, 122 Nev. at 954, 142 P.3d at 355. 7 United States v. Petrillo, 332 U.S. 1, 7 (1947). 8 Judy B. Zelin, Annotation, Statute Prohibiting Reckless Driving: Definiteness and Certainty, 52 A.L.R. 4th 1161 (1987). Compare State v. Pigge, 322 P.2d 703, 704-05 (Idaho 1957) (determining that language analogous to NRS 484.348(3)(b) is unconstitutional because it fails to identify any general or specific act or acts that are prohibited), State v. Huffman, 275 N.W.2d 838, 840 (Neb. 1979) (<HOLDING>), and People v. Firth, 146 N.E.2d 682, 683-84
holding that a statute prohibiting the operation of a motor vehicle in such a manner as to likely endanger persons or property is open to conjecture and unconstitutionally vague holding that a kansas statute providing among other things that no motor vehicle could be operated on the highways equipped with oneway glass or adhesive film which prohibits or substantially impairs the ability to see into such motor vehicle from the outside was not unconstitutionally vague holding the phrase open and gross lewdness unconstitutionally vague holding factor b is not unconstitutionally vague holding flag contempt statute unconstitutionally vague