Nat'l Ass'n v. Barrett, 155 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Nat'l Ass'n v. Barrett, 155 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
25 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jesse Charles Reverio
11th Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
See Jordan, 635 F.3d at 1189 ; United States v. Scott, 263 F.3d 1270, 1273 (11th Cir.2001); United States v. Dupree, 258 F.3d 1258, 1259-60 (11th Cir.2001); Hiley v. Barrett, 155 F.3d 1276, 1277 (11th Cir.1998); United States v. McAllister, 77 F.3d 387, 389-90 (11th Cir.1996).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Tom Maurice Jones
11th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
United States v. Dupree, 258 F.3d 1258, 1259-60 (11th Cir.2001); Hiley v. Barrett, 155 F.3d 1276, 1277 (11th Cir.1998), aff'g, Nat’l Ass’n of Gov’t Emps., Inc. v. Barrett, 968 F.Supp. 1564 (N.D.Ga.1997).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Hunt
11th Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
Id. at 1273-74 (reaffirming our holding that 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1) is a facially valid exercise of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause; Hiley v. Barrett, 155 F.3d 1276, 1277 (11th Cir. 1998)) (affirming district court’s conclusion, in National Ass’n of Gov’t Employees, Inc. v. Barrett, 968 F.Supp. 1564, 1577-78 (N.D.Ga.1997), that 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(9) did not violate the Tenth Amendment because it was a valid exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power); 1 see also New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 174 , 112 S.Ct. 2408 , 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992) (holding that a congr…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. William Maurice Smith
8th Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
See McGrath, 60 F.3d at 1009 (noting Congress provided other mechanisms of relief); National *626 Ass'n of Gov't Employees, Inc. v. Barrett, 968 F.Supp. 1564, 1574-75 (N.D.Ga.1997) (finding no equal protection violation under § 922(g)(9) because Congress provided misdemeanants the same mechanisms for avoiding the firearm ban under § 921(a)(33) as it provided felons under 921(a)(20)), aff'd, Hiley v. Barrett, 155 F.3d 1276, 1277 (11th Cir.1998) (affirming "for the reasons stated in the district court's thorough and well-reasoned order.").
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. William Smith
8th Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
Ga. 1997) (finding no equal protection violation under § 922(g)(9) because Congress provided misdemeanants the same mechanisms for avoiding the firearm ban under § 921(a)(33) as it provided felons under 921(a)(20)), aff'd, Hiley v. Barrett, 155 F.3d 1276, 1277 (11th Cir. 1998) (affirming "for the reasons stated in the district court's thorough and well-reasoned order.").
cited Cited "see" United States v. Alisbey Santillon Gata
11th Cir. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hiley v. Barrett, 155 F.3d 1276, 1277 (11th Cir. 1998), aff’g, Nat’l Ass’n of Gov’t Emps. v. Barrett, 968 F. Supp. 1564 . 1577–78 (N.D.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Celace Poliard
11th Cir. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hiley v. Barrett, 155 F.3d 1276, 1277 (11th Cir. 1998) (adopting the reasoning of the district court in Nat’l Ass’n of Gov’t Emps., Inc. v. Barrett, 968 F. Supp. 1564, 1577-78 (N.D.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. White
11th Cir. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hiley v. Barrett, 155 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir.1998) (affirming the district court’s decision upholding § 922(g)(9)’s constitutionality against commerce clause, equal protection, substantive due process, ex post facto, bill of attainder, and Tenth Amendment attacks).
discussed Cited "see" Lehman v. Pennsylvania State Police (2×)
Pa. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See 2 Pa.C.S. § 703(a). [3] Relying on United States v. Brady, 26 F.3d 282 (2d Cir.1994), and Nat'l Ass'n of Gov't Employees v. Barrett, 968 F.Supp. 1564 (N.D.Ga.1997), aff'd sub nom., Hiley v. Barrett, 155 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir.1998), the Commonwealth Court concluded § 922(g) did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Kirk J. Lewitzke
7th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See National Ass’n of Government Employees, Inc. v. Barrett, 968 F.Supp. 1564, 1573 (N.D.Ga.1997) (“The court does not doubt that limiting the ability of a domestic violence misde-meanant to possess a firearm is reasonably related to Congress’ purpose of protecting public safety by keeping firearms out of the hands of potentially dangerous or irresponsible persons.”), aff'd. and adopted by Hiley v. Barrett, 155 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir.1998); Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 13 F.Supp.2d 811, 824 (S.D.Ind.1998) (Barker, C.J.), appeal pending (No. 98-2691).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Michael A. Moody
11th Cir. · 2014 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Hiley v. Barrett, 155 F.3d 1276, 1277 (11th Cir.1998), aff'g Nat’l Ass’n of Gov’t Emps., Inc. v. Barrett, 968 F.Supp. 1564, 1577-78 (N.D.Ga.1997) (affirming the district court’s conclusion that § 922(g) does not violate the Tenth Amendment .because it represents a valid exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Kenny Thrower
11th Cir. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Cheffer v. Reno, 55 F.3d 1517, 1521 (11th Cir.1995) (“Because the [challenged legislation] is within Congress’ Commerce Clause power, it does not violate the Tenth Amendment.”); see also Hiley v. Barrett, 155 F.3d 1276, 1277 (11th Cir.1998) (adopting the reasoning of the district court in Nat’l Ass’n of Gov’t Emps., Inc. v. Barrett, 968 F.Supp. 1564, 1577-78 (N.D.Ga.1997) (“Because § 922(g)(9) is a valid exercise of Congress’ commerce authority, it cannot violate the Tenth Amendment.”)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
National Association
v.
Barrett
97-9006.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Sep 21, 1998.
155 F.3d 1276
Published
United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

No. 97-9006.

William S. HILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Jacqueline H. BARRETT, Sheriff, Fulton County, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Sept. 21, 1998

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (No. 1:97-CV-276- RCF); Richard C. Freeman, Judge.

Before HATCHETT, Chief Judge, HULL, Circuit Judge, and LENARD*, District Judge.

HATCHETT, Chief Judge:

This case is affirmed for the reasons stated in the district court's thorough and well-reasoned order dated July 2, 1997, and cited as 968 F.Supp. 1564 (N.D.Ga.1997).

AFFIRMED.

* Honorable Joan A. Lenard, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation.