297 F. Supp. 2d 201 - Seegars v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 921 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Warth v. Seldin · Younger v. Harris · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A generalized grievance, which is presumably shared with many other citizens of the District of Columbia, without an imminent threat of prosecution or another type of injury-in-fact (i.e., economic harm), is not sufficient to confer standing to the plaintiffs.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“injury in fact — an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“remove the trigger lock when she deems it necessary to defend herself in her home.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.