green
Positive treatment
8.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
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 "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).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right
See also Schwoerer, Declaration, supra note 157, at 75–76 (describing Charles II’s actions, including disarmament, and noting rise of complaints from Commons beginning in 1668). 160 Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms, supra note 33, at 12; see id. at 69–76; Schwoerer, Declara- tion, supra note 157, at 78 (describing it as “the most stringent and comprehensive of the game laws”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 161 22 & 23 Car.
discussed
Cited "see"
State Of Louisiana v. Jason Leon Griffin
See State v. Duncan, 99- 2615 ( La. 10/ 16/ 01), 802 So. 2d 533 , 549- 50, cert. denied, 536 U.S. 907 , 122 S. Ct. 2362 , 153 L.Ed.2d 183 ( 2002). 31 A thorough review of the record reveals the trial court, State, and defendant were all actively engaged in a full and complete voir dire.
cited
Cited "see"
State Of Louisiana v. Donovan Darville
See State v. Duncan, 99- 2615 ( La. 10/ 16/ 01), 802 So. 2d 533, 545 , cert. denied, 536 U.S. 907 , 122 S. Ct. 2362 , 153 L.Ed. 2d 183 ( 2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
in Re Danny Eaton
E.g., In re Slanker, 365 S.W.3d 718, 721 (Tex. App.— 6 Texarkana 2012, orig. proceeding) (citing In re Derzapf, 219 S.W.3d 327 , 334–35 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding)); In re J.W.L., 291 S.W.3d 79 , 83 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]); accord United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203, 263 (5th Cir. 2001) (recognizing review of section 6.502 temporary orders is “available by mandamus”), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 907 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Henderson
See State v. Duncan, 99-2615, p. 24 (La.10/16/01), 802 So.2d 533, 550 , cert. denied, 536 U.S. 907 , 122 S.Ct. 2362 , 153 L.Ed.2d 183 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Prejean
See State v. Duncan, 99-2615, p. 14 (La. 10/16/01), 802 So.2d 533, 545 , cert. denied, 536 U.S. 907 , 122 S.Ct. 2362 , 153 L.Ed.2d 183 (2002).
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"
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"
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"
United States v. Lawton, Andre
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 (2002); see also United States v. Price, 328 F.3d 958, 961 (7th Cir. 2003).
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).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Banks
See 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 "see"
United States v. Banks
See 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 907 , 122 S.Ct. 2362 , 153 L.Ed.2d 184 (2002).
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).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Matthew Henry
See, e.g., United States v. Haney, 264 F.3d 1161, 1170-71 (10th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 907 , 122 S.Ct. 2362 , 153 L.Ed.2d 183 (2002); United States v. Franklyn, 157 F.3d 90, 93, 96-97 (2d Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1112 , 119 S.Ct. 887 , 142 L.Ed.2d 786 (1999); United States v. Wright, 117 F.3d 1265 , 1267, 1270-71 (11th Cir.1997), vacated in part on rehearing on other grounds by United States v. Wright, 133 F.3d 1412 (11th Cir. 1998); United States v. Knutson, 113 F.3d 27, 31 (5th Cir.1997) (per curiam); United States v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273, 284-85 (3d Cir.1996), cert. deni…
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."
State v. Hirsch/Friend
See, e.g., United States v. Emerson, 270 F3d 203, 220, 260 (5th Cir 2001), cert den, 536 US 907 (2002); Stephen P. Halbrook, What the Framers Intended: A Linguistic Analysis of the Right to “Bear Arms,” 49 Law & Contemp Probs 151, 162 (Winter 1986); Kates, 82 Mich L Rev at 273 (all adopting or advocating individual-right view); Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F3d 1052, 1060-61, 1086-87 (9th Cir 2002), cert den, 540 US 1046 (2003); David C.
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).
Morales
v.
Vaughn, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Graterford
v.
Vaughn, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Graterford
01-9456.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 10, 2002.
Published
MORALES
v.
VAUGHN, SUPERINTENDENT, STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT GRATERFORD.
No. 01-9456.
Supreme Court of the United States.
June 10, 2002.
1
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.