Akwada v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1229A (§ 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Holmberg v. Armbrecht · Lozada v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Hugo Castillo-Perez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service · Harris v. Hutchinson · Stewart v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There is no number limit on a motion to reopen to rescind an order entered in absentia in deportation or exclusion proceedings if an alien does not receive statutorily prescribed notice. Akwada, however, was subject to removal proceedings, to which stricter limits apply.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he doctrine that the statute of limitations will not bar a claim if the plaintiff, despite diligent efforts, did not discover the injury until after the limitations period had expired.”
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.