183 Wis. 2d 505 - State v. Thiel’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 46 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'sell,' 'loan,' 'exhibit,' and 'transfer' — represents a knowing and affirmative act. . . . [T]he language of sec. 948.11 focuses on the affirmative conduct of an individual toward a specific minor or minors. Therefore, an individual violates the statute if he or she, aware of the nature of the material, knowingly offers or presents for inspection to a specific minor or minors material defined as harmful to children in sec. 948.11(l)(b).”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Gonzalez · State v. Trochinski

2. “A reviewing court must view the overbreadth doctrine as "'strong medicine1" which should be employed only "with hesitation, and then 'only as a last resort.'" New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 769 (1981). ... Facial challenges to a statute ... do not succeed when a limiting construction is available to maintain the legislation's constitutional integrity. Broadrick [v. Oklahoma], 413 U.S. [601] at 613 (1973)]. Additionally, since [the statute] encompasses both speech and conduct, the overbreadth challenge must be both real and substantial.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 195 Wis. 2d 554 - Schultz v. City of Cumberland · 219 Wis. 2d 13 - Lounge Management, Ltd. v. Town of Trenton

3. “means (identify the type of material) of a person or portion of the human body that depicts nudity, sexually explicit conduct, sadomasochistic abuse, physical torture, or brutality, and that is harmful to children.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Gonzalez · State v. Booker