State v. Whites Landing Fisheries, L.L.C., 2017 Ohio 4021

Whites Landing Fisheries (WLF), a commercially licensed Lake Erie fisherman, was charged with three counts of harvesting yellow perch in excess of quarterly quotas; conviction could lead to permanent license revocation because of two prior convictions.
ODNR set the 2015 quota for yellow perch in Management Unit 1 (MU1) at zero pounds; two other units had positive allocations.
MU1 and MU2 boundaries are defined in Ohio Adm. Code 1501:31-1-02(MMM) by geographic county lines and by lines described as running “northeast to the eighty-two degree, thirty minute meridian.”
WLF moved to dismiss, arguing the term “northeast” in the regulation is ambiguous/vague (could mean any direction between 0° and 90°), rendering the regulation void as applied; trial court granted dismissal.
The State appealed, arguing “northeast” has an ordinary and nautical meaning—an intercardinal compass point of 45°—and that the regulation is not vague when read in context; the appellate court reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the phrase “northeast” in Ohio Adm. Code 1501:31-1-02(MMM) is unconstitutionally vague	"Northeast" has a clear, ordinary and nautical meaning: the intercardinal compass point at 45°; the regulation must be read in context of commercial fishing	"Northeast" is ambiguous/undefined and could mean any bearing between north and east (0°–90°), making the boundary unclear	Court held not vague: in context (nautical/commercial fishing), "northeast" reasonably denotes the 45° bearing; WLF failed to prove vagueness beyond a reasonable doubt
Whether WLF had fair notice and could be held liable given the boundary description	WLF was on notice of MU1’s zero quota (ODNR letter) and the alleged harvest locations were clearly within MU1 under the 45° interpretation	The lack of a specified bearing deprived WLF of fair notice and invited arbitrary enforcement	Court agreed notice existed under the 45° interpretation and that the facts supported application of the regulation; dismissal reversed

Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972) (void-for-vagueness doctrine: statutes must give fair warning of proscribed conduct)
Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) (void-for-vagueness standards and enforcement concerns)
Rose v. Locke, 423 U.S. 48 (1975) (recognition that many statutes have some inherent vagueness)
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (facial challenges to statutes require showing no set of circumstances under which statute would be valid)
Tanner, 15 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio void-for-vagueness standard under state constitution)
Dorso, 4 Ohio St.3d 60 (undefined statutory terms are to be given common meaning; context matters)
Harrold, 107 Ohio St.3d 44 (distinguishing facial and as-applied challenges; burden on challenger)