Holloway v. Sessions’s Empirical Analysis
2018
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 925
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Elrod v. Burns · United States v. Testan
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]ithout questioning the validity of the study's methodology, we find that this study alone does not adequately establish a substantial fit between Holloway's disarmament and the government's compelling interest in preventing armed mayhem.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Williams v. Barr“ban under § 922(g)(1) will survive intermediate scrutiny if the Government shows a substantial fit between disarming Miller and its important interest in”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Miller v. Sessions“a powerful expression of [the state legislature's] belief that the offense is not serious enough to be disqualifying.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Miller v. Sessions
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.