Taylor v. Montgomery

• Decision Date: 14 April 1980
• Docket Number: No. 14249.,14249.
• Citation: 413 A.2d 923
• Parties: Loumis S. TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. James R. MONTGOMERY, III, Acting Superintendent of Insurance, Respondent.
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals

413 A.2d 923

Loumis S. TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. James R. MONTGOMERY, III, Acting Superintendent of Insurance, Respondent.

No. 14249.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Argued February 14, 1980.

Decided April 14, 1980.

Lewis M. Milford, Washington, D. C., with whom Margaret G. Gold, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for petitioner.

Judith W. Rogers, Corp. Counsel, Richard W. Barton, Deputy Corp. Counsel, and Margaret L. Hines, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for respondent.

Before NEWMAN, Chief Judge, and GALLAGHER and PRYOR, Associate Judges.

NEWMAN, Chief Judge:

This is a petition for review of a decision of the District of Columbia Superintendent of Insurance, denying petitioner's application for licensure as a life insurance solicitor pursuant to D.C.Code 1973, § 35-425. That section in pertinent part provides that "the superintendent of insurance [must be] reasonably satisfied that an applicant is a trustworthy person" before he may grant such person a license to solicit insurance in the District of Columbia. Petitioner now contends that the rejection of his application for licensure violated due process, because the statutory standard of "trustworthy" is void for vagueness. In addition, petitioner argues that his disqualification on the basis of his two previous criminal convictions and his status as a parolee, has no rational relationship to the purpose of the Act. We find petitioner's contentions without merit and affirm the Superintendent's decision.¹

I

In July of 1977, petitioner applied for an insurance solicitor's license from the District of Columbia Department of Insurance in accordance with D.C.Code 1973, § 35-425. In answer to a question on the application form concerning previous criminal convictions, petitioner disclosed that in 1968 he had been convicted of petit larceny and in 1973 of receiving stolen property. On October 27, 1978, Superintendent of Insurance, Maximilian Wallach, presided at a hearing to evaluate petitioner's original application for licensure. At the time of the hearing, petitioner was still on parole as a result of a two- to six-year sentence from the receiving stolen property conviction. At the hearing, petitioner presented evidence of his rehabilitation subsequent to his criminal convictions. His application for a license was denied.²

II

A statute, in order to survive a vagueness challenge must be sufficiently specific to insure adequate notice to affected parties and provide a "comprehensible normative standard" by which to evaluate behavior. Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 614, 91 S.Ct. 1686, 1688, 29 L.Ed.2d 214 (1971); Willcher v. United States, D.C. App., 408 A.2d 67 (1979); see, e. g., Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 752, 94 S.Ct. 2547, 2559, 41 L.Ed.2d 439 (1974), quoted in District of Columbia v. B. J. R., D.C.App., 332 A.2d 58, 60, cert. denied, 421 U.S. 1016, 95 S.Ct. 2425, 44 L.Ed.2d 685 (1975). While the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not require an explicit enumeration of every type of conduct to which the statute may apply, Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223, 231, 71 S.Ct. 703, 707, 95 L.Ed. 886 (1951); United States v. Petrillo, 332 U.S. 1, 7, 67 S.Ct. 1538, 1541, 91 L.Ed. 1877 (1947), the legislation must not be so indefinite that persons of "common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. . . ." Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 127, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926), quoted in Willcher v. United States, supra, at 73; see also District of Columbia v. Gueory, D.C.App., 376 A.2d 834, 839 (1977); Moore v. United States, D.C.App., 306 A.2d 278, 281 (1971). Thus a statute is not void for vagueness merely because a standard could have been articulated in "[c]learer and more precise language", United States v. Petrillo, supra, 332 U.S. at 7, 67 S.Ct. at 1541, quoted in United States v. Powell, 423 U.S. 87, 94, 96 S.Ct. 316, 320, 46 L.Ed.2d 228 (1975), so long as it comports with a "rough idea of fairness." Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 110, 92 S.Ct. 1953, 1957, 32 L.Ed.2d 584 (1972).

The Supreme Court in addressing the "void for vagueness" issue has interpreted various statutes and provided a framework in which to apply the doctrine. Specifically, "[i]t is well established that vagueness challenges to statutes which do not involve First Amendment freedoms must be examined in light of the facts of the case at hand." United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544, 550, 95 S.Ct. 710, 714, 42 L.Ed.2d 706 (1975), quoted in Willcher v. United States, supra at 73; In re A. B., Jr., D.C.App., 395 A.2d 59, 61 (1978). A petitioner may not challenge a provision merely because he can hypothesize other situations in which the legislation might be misapplied, or fail to yield adequate notice if, in fact, he falls squarely within the terms and reach of the provision. United States v. Powell, supra; Parker v. Levy, supra, 417 U.S. at 756-57, 94 S.Ct. at 2562; Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 610, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 2914, 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973); United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 21, 80 S.Ct. 519, 522, 4 L.Ed.2d 524 (1960); Willcher v. United States, supra; In re A. B., Jr., supra; Leiss v. United States, D.C.App., 364 A.2d 803, 807, cert. denied, 430 U.S. 970, 97 S.Ct. 1654, 52 L.Ed.2d 362 (1976).³ Thus, in the present case, the validity of the insurance statute must not be assessed in the abstract, but in light of its application to the petitioner.

The record in this case indicates that the Superintendent of Insurance denied petitioner's application for a solicitor's license in major part on the basis of two previous convictions, one of which was for a felony. Therefore, in determining whether D.C. Code 1973, § 35-425 is vague as applied to petitioner, we must consider whether or not the petitioner had sufficient notice that his convictions could be used to deny his application, and whether the enunciated standard of "trustworthiness" was sufficiently definite so as to avoid an unfettered exercise of discretion. Broadrick v. Oklahoma, supra 413 U.S. at 607, 93 S.Ct. at 2913; Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2298, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972); Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 162, 92 S.Ct. 839, 843, 31 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972); Interstate Circuit v. Dallas, 390 U.S. 676, 684-85, 88 S.Ct. 1298, 1303, 20 L.Ed.2d 225 (1968).

D.C.Code 1973, § 35-425 provides that the Superintendent of Insurance shall not grant a solicitor's license unless he is satisfied that the applicant is "trustworthy." The very next section of the statute, § 35-426, entitled "Suspension or revocation of license — Grounds for — Hearing — Penalty", utilizes the term "untrustworthy" and elaborates its meaning. That section in pertinent part provides:

The Superintendent of Insurance may suspend or revoke the license of any life insurance general agent, agent solicitor, or broker when and if, after investigation, it appears to the Superintendent that . . . Such person . . . [has engaged in any of a variety of activities reflecting dishonesty or breach of fiduciary obligations] . . . or has been convicted of a felony; or has otherwise shown himself untrustworthy or incompetent to act as a life insurance general agent, agent solicitor, or broker.

Respondent argues that §§ 35-425 and -426 should be read in conjunction with one another, so that a felony conviction may be considered as evidence of untrustworthiness not only when ruling on a license revocation but when reviewing an original application for licensure.

In accordance with the principles of statutory construction, it is well established that a statute should not be read in isolation from the entire context of the legislation, Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1, 82 S.Ct. 585, 7 L.Ed.2d 492 (1962); State Highway Commission of Missouri v. Volpe, 479 F.2d 1099, 1111-12 (8th Cir. 1973) (applying Richards v. United States, supra); United States v. Brown, 536 F.2d 117, 121 (6th Cir. 1976); American Pharmaceutical Association v. Weinberger, 377 F.Supp. 824 (D.D.C.1974), aff'd, 174 U.S.App.D.C. 202, 530 F.2d 1054 (1976). In Richards v. United States, supra, the Supreme Court explained:

We believe it is fundamental that a section of a statute should not be read in isolation from the context of the whole Act, and that in fulfilling our responsibility in interpreting legislation, `we must not be guided by a single sentence or member of a sentence, but [should] look to the provisions of the whole law, and, to its object and policy.' [369 U.S. at 11, 82 S.Ct. at 592 (footnote omitted), quoting Mastro Plastics Corp. v. NLRB, 350 U.S. 270, 285, 76 S.Ct. 349, 359, 100 L.Ed. 309 (1956).]

Furthermore, the interpretation of a word in one provision of a statute may often be clarified by reference to that same term in another section. Tri-State Terminals, Inc. v. Jesse, 596 F.2d 752 (7th Cir. 1979); United States v. Gertz, 249 F.2d 662 (9th Cir. 1967); United States v. Vargas, 380 F.Supp. 1162 (E.D.N.Y.1974). See also Fleming v. Moberly Milk Products Co., 82 U.S.App.D.C. 16, 160 F.2d 259, cert. denied, 331 U.S. 786, 67 S.Ct. 1304, 91 L.Ed. 1816 (1947) (common words within a statute will be given the same meaning if there is no evidence indicating a contrary legislative intent); Cooke v. Board of Education, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 117, 161 F.2d 877 (1947) (same); United States v. Simpson, 561 F.2d 53 (7th Cir. 1977) (same); Hodgson v. Prophet Co., 472 F.2d 196 (10th Cir. 1973) (same); Schooler v. United States, 231 F.2d 560 (8th Cir. 1956) (same); compare Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. United States, 286 U.S. 427, 52 S.Ct. 607, 76 L.Ed. 1204 (1932) (the meaning of identical words may vary depending on the purpose of the law and the context in which they are used); Schultz v. NLRB, 109 U.S.App.D.C. 120, 284 F.2d 254 (1960) (same). Thus, the meaning of "trustworthiness" must be assessed with regard to the...