Hollis v. Lynch’s Empirical Analysis
827 F.3d 436 · 2016
Citation profile
10 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Bryan Range v. Attorney General United States (2023), Kolbe v. Hogan (2017)
10 federal appellate ·
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.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 921 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 26 U.S.C. § 5845 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968)
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · District of Columbia v. Heller · Staples v. United States · Raines v. Byrd · McDonald v. City of Chicago
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[e]very post- Heller case to grapple with whether a weapon is 'popular' enough to be considered 'in common use' has relied on statistical data of some form.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modem developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kolbe v. Hogan“(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells: (1)- any of the following items, unless the item is registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ...: (A) an explosive weapon; [or] (B) a machine gun. 178”
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.