John Doe v. Immigration and Naturalization Service’s Empirical Analysis
120 F.3d 200 · 1997
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently March 2020 · most notably Hector Tito Lujan-Armendariz v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Mauro Roldan-Santoyo v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (2000), United States of America v. Viken Hovsepian (2004)
23 federal appellate · 5 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.
Relationships
Relies on United State v. Morgan · United States v. Banda · United States v. Ayala · United States v. Reyes
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“' Audita querela is not a wand which may be waved over an otherwise valid criminal conviction, causing its disappearance; rather, it provides relief from the consequences of a conviction when a defense or discharge arises subsequent to entry of the final judgment. The defense or discharge must be a legal defect in the conviction, or in the sentence which taints the conviction. Equities or gross injustice, in themselves, will not satisfy the legal objection requirement and will not provide a basis for relief.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Appellant] argues ... that he is entitled to equitable relief under the All Writs Act generally. We disagree. The All Writs Act “is not a grant of plenary power to the federal courts. Rather, it is designed to aid the courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction. An order is not authorized under the Act unless it is designed to preserve jurisdiction that the court has acquired from some other independent source in law.” Doe has identified no independent source in law that empowers federal courts to vacate convictions to shield defendants from deportation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Audita querela is probably available where there is a legal, as contrasted with an equitable, objection to a conviction that has arisen subsequent to the conviction and that is not redressable pursuant to another post-conviction remedy.”
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.