green
Positive treatment
8.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "but see"
NAACP v. AcuSport, Inc.
But see United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 907 , 122 S.Ct. 2362 , 153 L.Ed.2d 184 (2002).
cited
Cited "but see"
National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Acusport, Inc.
But see United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir.2001), ce rt. denied, 536 U.S. 907 , 122 S.Ct. 2362 , 153 L.Ed.2d 184 (2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dickerson v. City of Denton
An individual’s Second Amendment right to bear arms, however, is subject to “limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions or restrictions for particular cases.” Id. at 261.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Banks
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
In Emerson, we recognized that "the Second Amendment does protect individual rights" but that those rights may be "subject to... limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually keep and bear their private arms." Id. at 261.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Banks
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
In Emerson, we recognized that “the Second Amendment does protect individual rights” but that those rights may be “subject to ... limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually keep and bear their private arms.” Id. at 261.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ismael Holguin Herrera
(2×)
Emerson clearly recognizes that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms “does not mean that those rights may never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this country.” Id. at 261.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Knight
Accord United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 907 , 122 S.Ct. 2362 , 153 L.Ed.2d 184 (2002). 1 The threatened conduct that is a prerequisite to the prohibition is serious: “harassing, stalking, threatening,” or other conduct that would cause “reasonable fear of bodily injury”; and the court order must make a specific finding of “a credible threat to the physical safety” of an intimate partner or child or an explicit prohibition on the use of force “that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury.” 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(8).
discussed
Cited "see"
Richard Osborne v. Arlyn Grussing
But the remarks themselves were not actionable injury because they would not “deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to speak out.” Naucke v. City of Park Hills, 284 F.3d 923 , 928 (8th Cir.2002); see Carroll v. Pfeffer, 262 F.3d 847, 850 (8th Cir. 2001), cert. denied 536 U.S. 907 , 122 S.Ct. 2363 , 153 L.Ed.2d 184 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Osborne v. Grussing
But the remarks themselves were not actionable injury because they would not "deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to speak out." Naucke v. City of Park Hills, 284 F.3d 923 , 928 (8th Cir.2002); see Carroll v. Pfeffer, 262 F.3d 847, 850 (8th Cir. 2001), cert. denied 536 U.S. 907 , 122 S.Ct. 2363 , 153 L.Ed.2d 184 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Andre Lawton
See generally United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203, 260-61 (5th Cir.2001) (holding that although the Second Amendment does include an individual’s right to bear arms, that right is nonetheless subject to reasonable restriction), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 907 , 122 S.Ct. 2362 , 153 L.Ed.2d 184 (2002); see also United States v. Price, 328 F.3d 958, 961 (7th Cir.2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jackubowski
See United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203, 261 (5th Cir.2002) (upholding against constitutional attack § 922(g)(8), which precludes individuals under certain restraining orders from possessing firearms, and specifically noting that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 907 , 122 S.Ct. 2362 , 153 L.Ed.2d 184 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Randee Lee Bayles, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant
See United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir.2001), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 2362 , 153 L.Ed.2d 184 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Larson
In Mahin , the Fourth Circuit stated that, “when Congress enacted § 922(g)(8) it was ‘legislating against the background of the rule of American law that for an injunction to issue there must be a likelihood that irreparable harm will occur.’ ” Id. at 126 (quoting United States v. Elkins, 780 F.Supp.2d 473, 479 (W.D.Va. 2011)); see also Chapman, 666 F.3d at 228 (“ ‘Congress in enacting section 922(g)(8)(C)(ii) proceeded on the assumption that the laws of the several states were such that court orders, issued after notice and hearing, should not embrace the prohibitions of paragrap…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Parker v. District of Columbia
(2×)
See Op. Off. of Legal Counsel, "Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right" (2004) available at http://www. usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf; see also Memorandum from John Ashcroft, Attorney General, to All United States' Attorneys (Nov. 9, 2001), reprinted in Br. for the United States in Opposition at 26, Emerson, 536 U.S. 907 , 122 S.Ct. 2362 , 153 L.Ed.2d 184 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Parker
(2×)
Compare United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203, 260 (5th Cir.2001) (individual right), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 907 , 122 S.Ct. 2362 , 153 L.Ed.2d 184 (2002), with Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, 1086 (9th Cir.2002) (collective right), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 803 , 157 L.Ed.2d 693 (2003).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Horn
v.
Jones, Warden
v.
Jones, Warden
01-9479.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 10, 2002.
Published
HORN
v.
JONES, WARDEN, ET AL.
No. 01-9479.
Supreme Court of the United States.
June 10, 2002.
1
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.