green
Positive treatment
Circuit Split
Quoted verbatim 1×
10.1 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2004 ·
…whatever questions remain unanswered, miller and its progeny do confirm that the second amendment establishes no right to possess a firearm apart from the role possession of the gun might play in maintaining a state militia.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 24 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Red Earth LLC v. United States
(2×)
But see Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693, 703-04 (7th Cir.1999) (allowing private parties to bring Tenth Amendment challenges), cer t. denied, 528 U.S. 1116 , 120 S.Ct. 934 , 145 L.Ed.2d 813 (2000).
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Seegars v. Ashcroft
(2×)
whatever questions remain unanswered, miller and its progeny do confirm that the second amendment establishes no right to possess a firearm apart from the role possession of the gun might play in maintaining a state militia.
discussed
Cited "see"
Haynes v. Planet Automall, Inc.
(2×)
See Matassarin v. Lynch, 174 F.3d 549 (5th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1116 , 120 S.Ct. 934 , 145 L.Ed.2d 813 (2000) (named plaintiffs antagonism to defendants prevented her from representing class); cf. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3)(B) (court must consider “the extent and nature of any litigation ... already begun by ... class members”).
cited
Cited "see"
J. Thomas Zaber, On Behalf Of Himself And All Others Similarly Situated Vs. City Of Dubuque, Iowa
See Thomas v. Network Solutions, Inc., 176 F.3d 500 (D.C.Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1115 , 120 S.Ct. 934 , 145 L.Ed.2d 813 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Bond
(2×)
See Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693, 703-04 (7th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1116 , 120 S.Ct. 934 , 145 L.Ed.2d 813 (2000); Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 666 F.2d 1359 , 1368 n. 16 (11th Cir.1982). 7 Five have not.
discussed
Cited "see"
Tittle v. Enron Corp.
(2×)
See Matassarin v. Lynch, 174 F.3d 549 (5th Cir.1999)(holding that for standing under § 502(a)(2) and Russell , a plaintiff must assert a claim whose remedy would inure to the benefit of the plan as a whole), cert, denied, 528 U.S. 1116 , 120 S.Ct. 934 , 145 L.Ed.2d 813 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Wei Zhang v. American Gem Seafoods, Inc., Delaware Corporation McMi Food Company, a Texas Corporation Harry Lees, a Natural Person
See Lambert v. Ackerley, 180 F.3d 997, 1008 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1116 , 120 S.Ct. 936 , 145 L.Ed.2d 814 (2000), (noting that in Fair Labor Standards Act case, jury was instructed that one element was "[t]hat the protected activity was a substantial motivating factor in the adverse employment action”); Sloman v. Tadlock, 21 F.3d 1462, 1471 (9th Cir.1994) (approving, in First *1030 Amendment context, instruction that jury "must find that the plaintiffs protected [activity] ... was a motivating factor in the defendants’ decisions”); Los Angeles Police Protective …
discussed
Cited "see"
Silveira v. Lockyer
(2×)
See Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693, 710 (7th Cir.1999), ce rt. denied, 528 U.S. 1116 , 120 S.Ct. 934 , 145 L.Ed.2d 813 (2000); United States v. Wright, 117 F.3d 1265, 1273-74 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1007 , 118 S.Ct. 584 , 139 L.Ed.2d 422 (1997); United States v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273, 286 (3d Cir.1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 807 , 118 S.Ct. 46 , 139 L.Ed.2d 13 (1997); Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120, 124 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 813 , 116 S.Ct. 64 , 133 L.Ed.2d 27 (1995); United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1019-20 (8th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 9…
discussed
Cited "see"
National Federation of Republican Assemblies v. United States
(2×)
See Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693, 703 (7th Cir.1999), ce rt. denied, 528 U.S. 1116 , 120 S.Ct. 934 , 145 L.Ed.2d 813 (2000); Frank v. United States, 78 F.3d 815, 825 (2nd Cir.1996), vacated on other grounds, 521 U.S. 1114 , 117 S.Ct. 2501 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1007 (1997), reinstated in pertinent part, 129 F.3d 273 (2nd Cir.1997); Wilson v. Jones, 45 F.Supp.2d 945, 949 (S.D.Ala.1999), aff'd, 220 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir.2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hobbs v. Stroh Brewery Co.
(2×)
See Matassarin v. Lynch, 174 F.3d 549, 563 (5th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1116 , 120 S.Ct. 934 , 145 L.Ed.2d 813 (2000); Penn v. Howe-Baker Eng’rs, 898 F.2d 1096 , 1100 & n. 2a (5th Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
Troy Swinton v. Potomac Corporation, Dba Crescent Cardboard Company, Dba crescent/u.s. Mat
See Lambert v. Ackerley, 180 F.3d 997, 1009-1010 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc), cert, denied, 528 U.S. 1116 , 120 S.Ct. 936 , 145 L.Ed.2d 814 (2000) (citing Larez v. Holcomb, 16 F.3d 1513, 1518 (9th Cir.1994); Benigni v. City of Hemet, 879 F.2d 473, 480 (9th Cir.1989)).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Rodney E. Hemmings
(2×)
See Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693 (7th Cir.1999) (addressing § 922(g)(9)), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1116 , 120 S.Ct. 934 , 145 L.Ed.2d 813 (2000); United States v. Williams, 128 F.3d 1128, 1134-35 (7th Cir.1997) (addressing § 922(g)(1)).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Hemmings, Rodney E.
See Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 1999) (addressing sec. 922(g)(9)), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1116 (2000); United States v. Williams, 128 F.3d 1128, 1134-35 (7th Cir. 1997) (addressing sec. 922(g)(1)).
cited
Cited "see"
Estate of McMorris v. Commissioner
See F.D.I.C. v. Noel, 177 F.3d 911, 915 (10th Cir.1999), ce rt. denied, 528 U.S. 1116 , 120 S.Ct. 935 , 145 L.Ed.2d 814 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Aboul-Fetouh v. Employee Benefits Committee
(2×)
See Matassarin v. Lynch, 174 F.3d 549, 563 (5th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1116 , 120 S.Ct. 934 , 145 L.Ed.2d 813 (2000); Penn v. Howe-Baker Eng’rs, 898 F.2d 1096 , 1100 & n. 2a (5th Cir.1990). “[T]he abuse of discretion standard may involve a two-step process.” Spacek, 134 F.3d at 292 .
cited
Cited "see"
Joseph D. Griggs v. E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Company, Joseph D. Griggs v. E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Company
See Farr v. U.S. West Communications, Inc., 151 F.3d 908, 913 (9th Cir. 1998) {Fair II), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1116 , 120 S.Ct. 935 , 145 L.Ed.2d 814 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
National A-1 Advertising, Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc.
See Thomas v. Network Solutions, Inc., 176 F.3d 500, 511 (D.C.Cir.1999) (“A recent and novel function such as domain name registration hardly strikes us as a ‘quintessential’ government service.”), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1115 , 120 S.Ct. 934 , 145 L.Ed.2d 813 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kathleen Burds v. Union Pacific Corp.
See Smith v. Sydnor, 184 F.3d 356, 364 (4th Cir.1999), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 934 , 145 L.Ed.2d 813 (2000); Richards v. General Motors Corp., 991 F.2d 1227, 1235 (6th Cir.1993); Held v. Manufacturers Hanover Leasing Corp., 912 F.2d 1197, 1205 (10th Cir.1990); Berger v. Edgewater Steel Co., 911 F.2d 911 , 916 n. 4 (3d Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 920 , 111 S.Ct. 1310 , 113 L.Ed.2d 244 (1991); Amaro v. Continental Can Co., 724 F.2d 747, 750-52 (9th Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
name.space, Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc. And National Science Foundation
See Thomas v. Network Solutions, Inc., 176 F.3d 500, 508-09 (D.C.Cir.1999), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 934 , 145 L.Ed.2d 813 (2000). 8 .Thus, NSI’s implied antitrust immunity is limited in scope to the specific conduct that is at issue in this appeal.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Warren v. United States
(2×)
See, e.g., Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693, 703-04 (7th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1116 , 120 S.Ct. 934 , 145 L.Ed.2d 813 (2000) (allowing private party to bring Tenth Amendment challenge); Medeiros v. Vincent, 431 F.3d 25, 33-36 (1st Cir.2005), cert. denied, 548 U.S. 904 , 126 S.Ct. 2968 , 165 L.Ed.2d 951 (2006) (holding that private party has no standing to bring Tenth Amendment claim).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Joseph H. Fleischli
(2×)
See also Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693 (7th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1116 , 120 S.Ct. 934 , 145 L.Ed.2d 813 (2000) (upholding challenge to section 922(g)(9) by a police officer who lost his job because he could not possess a firearm after being convicted of domestic violence); United States v. Floyd, 882 F.2d 235, 240 (7th Cir.1989) (holding union official could not be absolved of wrongdoing by claiming the act was done with union authorization under the principal recognized in McNamara).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Fleischli, Joseph
See also Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1116 (2000) (upholding challenge to section 922(g)(9) by a police officer who lost his job because he could not possess a firearm after being convicted of domestic violence); United States v. Floyd, 882 F.2d 235, 240 (7th Cir. 1989) (holding union official could not be absolved of wrongdoing by claiming the act was done with union authorization un- der the principal recognized in McNamara).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Bournes
Rather, Defendant must show that he possessed machine guns “in preparation for a military career,” and not “simply on a frolic of his own. and without any thought or intention of contributing to the efficiency of the well regulated militia which the Second Amendment was designed to foster as necessary to the security of a free state.” Cases, 131 F.2d at 923 ; see also Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693, 711 (7th Cir.1999) (stating the relevant test as whether there is “a nexus between the firearms disability imposed by the statute and the operation of state militias”),…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Tipp-It, Inc.
v.
Conboy, Omaha City Prosecutor
v.
Conboy, Omaha City Prosecutor
No. 99-614.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 18, 2000.
Published
Citer courts: District of Columbia (2)
Sup. Ct. Neb. Certiorari denied.