Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 5 PAD&C 443 - Commonwealth v. Gilbert

Commonwealth v. Gilbert’s Empirical Analysis

1924

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
July 2005
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Sharpless v. Mayor of Philadelphia · Barrett v. . State of New York · Commonwealth v. Vrooman · Commonwealth ex rel. Attorney General v. Snyder · Aldrich v. Wright

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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A portion of this county has become a great fruit-growing district. Fruit here has become a valuable article of commerce. Great tracts of land that were practically untillable have been cleared and planted in fruit trees. Very large sums have been spent in providing these and they have yielded very abundantly and have been a source of very ample return to the owners. A large number of wild deer have been for years living in this mountain. They not only damage the fruit but the vegetables and the gardens and the crops in the fields as well. They have rendered it almost impossible to have a vegetable garden. They have driven fruit farmers from their farms and, if allowed to continue their maraudings, these farmers, who have made large investments and who year after year spend much time and labor in caring for the fruit trees, will be compelled to abandon them; and there will be, instead of blossoms and ripe fruit found in abundance, thistles, thorns and briars. Why should all this be allowed? Aside from the beauty of the deer as they are seen roaming about the mountain, they must necessarily be preserved for food and the entertainment of the sportsman. It is recognized by every one who knows anything of the subject that the value of the deer for food is very insignificant. Must, then, the orchardist and the farmer and laborer who owns and cultivates his own garden be deprived of their property in order to preserve the game that the lover of sport may for a few days, or weeks at”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “the owner of real estate has an indefeasible right to destroy a deer when necessary to protect his crop. Any legislation which undertakes to deprive him of that right contravenes the Constitution.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.