Cabebe v. Acheson’s Empirical Analysis
183 F.2d 795 · 1950
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably Perdomo-Padilla v. Ashcroft (2003), Rabang v. Boyd (1957)
32 federal appellate · 5 district ·
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 22 U.S.C. § 212 · 22 U.S.C. § 223 · 48 U.S.C. § 1001 · 48 U.S.C. § 1231 · 48 U.S.C. § 1238 · 48 U.S.C. § 1240 · 8 U.S.C. § 501
Relies on De Lima v. Bidwell · Jones v. United States · The American Insurance Company v. 356 Bales of Cotton David Canter · Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States · Boyd v. Nebraska ex rel. Thayer
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(1) For the purposes of the Im-. migration Act of 1917, the Immigration Act of 1924 (except 13(c)), this section, and all other laws of the United States relating to the immigration, exclusion, or expulsion of aliens, citizens of the Philippine Islands who are not citizens of the United States shall be considered as if they were aliens. For such purposes the Philippine Islands shall be considered as a separate country and shall have each fiscal year a quota of fifty. This paragraph shall not apply to a person coming or seek- ' ing to come to the Territory of Hawaii who does not apply for and secure an immigration or passport visa, but such immigration shall be determined by the Department of Interior on the basis of the needs of industries in the Territory of Hawaii. “(2) Citizens of the Philippine Islands who are not citizens of the United States shall not be admitted to the continental United States from the Territory of Hawaii (whether entering such Territory before or after the effective date of this section) unless they belong to a class declared to be nonimmigrants by section 3 of the Immigration Act of 1924 or to a class declared to be nonquota immigrants under the provisions of section 4 of such Act other than subdivision (c) thereof, or unless they were admitted to such Territory under an immigration visa. The Attorney General shall by regulations provide a method for such exclusion and for the admission of such excepted classes.” See note 1 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he Philippine Independence Act ... stated the procedure by which the complete independence of the Philippine Islands was to be accomplished. In short, it authorized a constitutional convention to draft a constitution for the government of the newly named Commonwealth of the Philippine Islands, specified certain required provisions, and provided that after the President of the United States certified its conformance thereto the proposed constitution be submitted for ratification to the Philippine voters. It was further declared that on July 4th of the next following the expiration of a period of 10 years from the date of inauguration of the new government under such constitution, the President of the United States would proclaim the complete independence of the Philippine Islands and the people thereof. By its terms the Act was not effective until accepted by concurrent resolution of the Philippine legislature or by a convention called for the purpose of passing on such question. As of the date of such acceptance (which occurred in fact on May 1, 1931), it was provided in Section 8(a)(1) of the Act that ‘(f)or purposes of [United States immigration laws], ... citizens of the Philippine Islands who are not citizens of the United States shall be considered as if they were aliens.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Licudine v. Winter“On the 4th day of July immediately following the expiration of a period of ten years from the date of the inauguration of the new government under the constitution provided for in this Act, the President of the United States shall by proclamation withdraw and surrender all right of possession, supervision, jurisdiction, control, or sovereignty then existing and exercised by the United States in and over the territory and people of the Philippine Islands, including all military and other reservations of the Government of the United States in the Philippines ..., and, on behalf of the United States, shall recognize the independence of the Philippine Islands as a separate and self-governing nation and acknowledge the authority and control over the same of the government instituted by the people thereof, under the constitution then in force.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Licudine v. Winter
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.