60 Wis. 2d 668 - State v. Werstein’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 8 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In State v. Givens (1965), 28 Wis. 2d 109 , 135 N.W.2d 780 , we affirmed a conviction for disorderly conduct of several demonstrators who conducted a “sit-in” in a small municipal office. We found that the “otherwise disorderly” conduct of the demonstrators may not in another situation be criminally proscribed, but because of the circumstances therein involved — the forcible entry into and congesting of a small office thereby making its continued functioning impossible — their conduct was in fact disorderly. Likewise in State v. Zwicker, [ 41 Wis. 2d 497 , 164 N.W.2d 512 (1969)] we deemed the obstruction of the hallways and the use of signs under the circumstance therein involved to constitute disorderly conduct. Under varying circumstances, the display ing of a sign would not be deemed disorderly. Finally, in State v. Elson, [ 60 Wis. 2d 54 , 208 N.W.2d 363 (1973)] we upheld the conviction of an attorney for too vigorously disputing the denial of his right to converse with his client because of the fact that such protestation occurred in the ward of a mental hospital. In each of these cases, convictions for being “otherwise disorderly” resulted from the inappropriateness of specific conduct because of the circumstances involved.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 148 Wis. 2d 532 - City of Oak Creek v. King

2. “This court’s emphasis upon the relatedness of conduct and circumstances in the statute is no more than a recognition of the fact that what would constitute disorderly conduct in one set of circumstances, might not under some other. When a famed jurist observed, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic,” the comment related to the crowdedness of the theater as well as to the loudness of the shout. It is the combination of conduct and circumstances that is crucial in applying the statute to a particular situation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 148 Wis. 2d 532 - City of Oak Creek v. King

3. “The statute does not imply that all conduct which tends to annoy another is disorderly conduct. Only such conduct as unreasonably offends the sense of decency or propriety of the community is included. The statute does not punish a person for conduct which might possibly offend some hypercritical individual. The design of the disorderly conduct statute is to proscribe substantial intrusions which offend the normal sensibilities of average persons or which constitute significantly abusive or disturbing demeanor in the eyes of reasonable persons.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. As