Dorman v. Satti
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
678 F. Supp. 375 (1988)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
In 1985 the state of Connecticut passed the Hunter Harassment Act (the act) to criminalize interfering with or harassing an individual engaged in the lawful taking of wildlife or acting in preparation for the lawful taking of wildlife. In 1986 Francelle Dorman (plaintiff) filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim in federal district court against State Attorney Robert Satti (defendant). Dorman had been arrested under the act for trying to dissuade hunters from hunting geese. However, the state dismissed the charges because the arrest was premature. Dorman claimed that the act violated her rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution by being overly broad and unconstitutionally vague. Satti argued that the act regulated conduct rather than speech; was content-neutral and imposed reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions; and was reasonably necessary to further the state’s interest in regulating lawful hunting.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Nevas, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.