Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 144 FAPPX 536 - Tilley v. Chertoff

Tilley v. Chertoff’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
July 2020
most recently cited

9 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently July 2020

9 federal appellate ·

100200520102020decided

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 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (§ 241 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 Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Food & Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. · Bonhometre v. Gonzales · Taniguchi v. Schultz · Carlos Castro-Cortez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service Jose Luis Araujo

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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The Act instructs the district courts to transfer any habeas petitions pending in the district court on the date of the enactment of the Act to the appropriate circuit court to be treated as a petition for review, without regard to whether the habeas petition had been filed within thirty days of the final order of removal, as required for petitions for review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(1).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]he regulations promulgated in 8 C.F.R. § 241.8(a) meet all of the requirements of [INA] § 241(a)(5). Therefore, we do not see an ambiguity that requires us to review the agency's implementation of its governing statute.”
    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.