Walters v. Reno’s Empirical Analysis
145 F.3d 1032 · 1998
Citation profile
57 federal appellate · 15 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 188 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft (2004), Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft (2002)
57 federal appellate · 15 district · 13 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
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (§ 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1251 (§ 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)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1324C (§ 274c of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Califano v. Sanders · General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon · Lewis Director Arizona Department of Corrections v. Casey
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 188 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“general collateral challenges to unconstitutional practices and policies used by the agency.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[although common issues must predominate for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3), no such requirement exists under 23(b)(2). It is sufficient if class members complain of a pattern or practice that is generally applicable to the class as a whole. Even if some class members have not been injured by the challenged practice, a class may nevertheless be appropriate.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien,”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Barahona-Gomez v. Reno · 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1118, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1391 Alonso Antonio Barahona-Gomez Carmen Victoria Vazquez De Barahona Alonso Antonio Barahona-Vasquez Brenda Verzosa Dino Verzosa Humberto Javier-Rivas Bosco Guillermo Rivas Carole Beltran Santiago Ramon Sequeira Graciela De Los Angeles Isariuz Sandra Los Angeles Sequeira Marta Aguilar v. Janet Reno, Attorney General Executive Office for Immigration Review Michael Creppy, Chief Immigration Judge Paul Schmidt, Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Alonso Antonio Barahona-Gomez Carmen Victoria Vazquez De Barahona Alonso Antonio Barahona-Vasquez Brenda Verzosa Dino Verzosa Humberto Javier-Rivas Bosco Guillermo Rivas Carole Beltran Santiago Ramon Sequeira Graciela De Los Angeles Isariuz Sandra Los Angeles Sequeira Marta Aguilar v. Janet Reno, Attorney General Executive Office for Immigration Review Michael Creppy, Chief Immigration Judge Paul Schmidt, Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals
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.