76 F. Supp. 729 - Le Clair v. Swift’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 1992
2 district · 3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Lawton v. Steele · Spielman Motor Sales Co. v. Dodge · Geer v. State of Connecticut · Pacific States Box & Basket Co. v. White · Beal v. Missouri Pac Rr Corporation
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.
“Section 29.02, Wis. Stats., provides: "(1) The legal title to, and the custody and protection of, all wild animals within this state is vested in the state for the purposes of regulating the enjoyment, use, disposition, and conservation thereof." 8 . . . Section 29.01(1), Wis. Stats., [the present sec. 29.01(14)] defines the term "wild animal" to mean any mammal, bird, fish, or other creature of a wild nature . ..; It should be kept in mind that commercial fisher[s] ... do not have any absolute right to fish in waters under the control of the State of Wisconsin. Any property right in the fish in Wisconsin waters is in the State prior to the time they may be caught. It is not only the right, but the duty, of the State to preserve for the benefit of the general public, the fish in its waters from destruction or undue reduction in numbers .... As trustee for the people, in the exercise of this right and duty, the State may conserve fish and wild life by regulating or prohibiting the taking of same .... It is well established ... that by virtue of residual sovereignty, a State, as the representative of its people and for the common benefit of all of its citizens, may control the fish and game within its borders, and may regulate or prohibit such fishing . . .. Plaintiff is licensed as a commercial fisher[ ] by the State of Wisconsin. Without a State license he would not be permitted to engage in commercial fishing in . . . Lake Michigan . . .. Such licenses are not contracts and ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) The legal title to, and the custody and protection of, all wild animals within this state is vested in the state for the purposes of regulating the enjoyment, use, disposition, and conservation thereof.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“create[d] no vested or permanent rights.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.