Dorman v. Satti’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “No person shall: (1) Interfere with the lawful taking of wildlife by another person, or acts in preparation for such taking, with intent to prevent such taking; or (2) harass another person who is engaged in the lawful taking of wildlife or acts in preparation for such taking.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 164 Wis. 2d 255 - State v. Bagley · Dorman v. Satti

2. “So long as the legislature elects to permit hunters to pursue their activity on property, during times, and under circumstances set aside for that purpose, it may also regulate the conduct of nonhunters in those contexts. Considerations of safety, alone, would justify such regulation, even if it impinges incidentally upon protected speech. On the other hand, the propriety of hunting and taking wildlife is a fair subject for spirited debate. Once a hunter is outside the scope of his “lawful hunt” he is no different from any other unreceptive listener who must, “in vindication of our liberties,” be “exposed to the onslaught of repugnant ideas.” [Emphasis added],”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Lilburn

3. “walked with the hunters ..., [and] spoke to them about the violence and cruelty of hunting, of the beauty of the waterfowl and [of] their right to live peacefully and without harm.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dorman v. Satti