Silveira v. Lockyer’s Empirical Analysis
328 F.3d 567 · 2003
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 311 · 36 U.S.C. § 40722 · 36 U.S.C. § 40724
Relies on Katz v. United States · Williams v. Taylor · Neder v. United States · Ward v. Rock Against Racism · William Marbury v. James Madison
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.
“[t]he prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions. If we adopt a jurisprudence sympathetic to individual rights, we must give broad compass to all constitutional provisions that protect individuals from tyranny. If we take a more statist approach, we must give all such provisions narrow scope. Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution; it's using our power as judges to constitutionalize our personal preferences.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“As the Second Amendment's substantive guarantee confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, the question is whether the language of the Amendment's preamble modifies the right conferred by the substantive guarantee to limit it to a”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Nordyke v. King · Nordyke
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.