Tefel v. Reno’s Empirical Analysis
180 F.3d 1286 · 1999
Citation profile
57 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 155 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Fedaa al Najjar Mazen al Najjar v. John Ashcroft Attorney General US Department of Justice (2001), Adefemi v. Ashcroft (2004)
57 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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 28 U.S.C. § 46 · 8 U.S.C. § 1105A (§ 106 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1229B (§ 240a of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1254 (§ 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Olim v. Wakinekona · Heller v. Doe Ex Rel. Doe · Heckler v. Community Health Services of Crawford County, Inc. · Mathews v. Diaz
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 155 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Suspension of deportation is often abused by aliens seeking to delay proceedings until 7 years have accrued.”
18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“shall apply to notices to appear issued before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although the Supreme Court has not adopted a per se rule prohibiting the application of equitable estoppel against the government under any circumstances, ... the Court has suggested that if equitable estoppel is available at all against the government some form of affirmative misconduct must be shown in addition to the traditional requirements of estop-pel____While the Supreme Court has not squarely held that affirmative misconduct is a prerequisite for invoking equitable es-toppel against the government, this court has done so.”
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.