Silveira v. Lockyer’s Empirical Analysis
312 F.3d 1052 · 2002
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 9 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2024 · most notably District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), Parker v. District of Columbia (2007)
32 federal appellate · 9 district · 4 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 921 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act)
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Warth v. Seldin · City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center · Adams v. Williams · Allen v. Wright
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The amendment protects the people's right to maintain an effective state militia, and does not establish an individual right to own or possess firearms for personal or other use.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. (2 Humph.) 154 (1840). The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power — ‘To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.’ With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”
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.