Catholic Social Services, Inc. v. Reno’s Empirical Analysis
134 F.3d 921 · 1997
Citation profile
21 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently November 2011 · most notably Walters v. Reno (1998), Catholic Social Services, Inc. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (2000)
21 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
Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Johnson v. Robison · Fiallo Ex Rel. Rodriguez v. Bell
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(C) JURISDICTION OF COURTS: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall have jurisdiction of any cause of action or claim by or on behalf of any person asserting an interest under this section unless such person in fact filed an application under this section within the period specified by subsection (a)(1) of this section, or attempted to file a complete application and application fee with an authorized legalization officer of the Service but had the application and fee refused by that officer.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“they actually tendered an application and fee or attempted to do so”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“). In other words, even claims which raise collateral challenges to the Defendants' procedures and practices in the application process require as a prerequisite class members who were actually front-desked. The court opined that "[a] broader interpretation of § 377 would contravene Congress's clearly expressed intention to `put an end to[this] litigation.' An expansive reading of § 377 would foster litigation to define the parameters of an attempt to file a complete application.”
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.