Olympic Arms v. Buckles’s Empirical Analysis
301 F.3d 384 · 2002
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Dandridge v. Williams · Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. · Heller v. Doe Ex Rel. Doe · Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. · United States v. Carolene Products Co.
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; (iii) a bayonet mount; (iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and (v) a grenade launcher.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“semiautomatic assault weapon” a semiautomatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and at least two of five enumerated characteristics, including”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.” 18 U.S.C. § 922 (v)(1). Section 110102(b) of the Act classified as a”
1 later decision 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.