State v. Dronso

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• Wisconsin statute providing that one is guilty of disorderly conduct if “[wjith intent to annoy another, [he] makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues.”
• “A statute which subjects a telephone caller to criminal sanctions ... for calling with intent to annoy ... is overbroad as it may reasonably be interpreted to prohibit free speech which is constitutionally protected by both the United States and Wisconsin Constitutions”
• \A statute which subjects a telephone caller to criminal sanctions ... for calling with intent to annoy ... is overbroad as it may reasonably be interpreted to prohibit free speech which is constitutionally protected by both the United States and Wisconsin Constitutions\
• striking down statute that prohibited intentionally annoying phone calls
• striking down statute that prohibited intentionally annoying phone calls

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).