State v. Jurado’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (§ 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1329 (§ 279 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Gagnon v. Scarpelli · United States v. Chambers · State v. Alfaro · Hernandez v. State · State v. Camargo
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Camargo , the trial judge ordered as conditions of probation that the defendant be turned over to USINS officials for deportation proceedings and that he remain outside the United States during the probation period. The Arizona Supreme Court recognized that the federal government has exclusive power over matters dealing with the entry and deportation of aliens. It therefore found that the trial judge did not have jurisdiction to order that the defendant be deported or that he remain outside the United States during the term of his probation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Patel
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.