Ali Abdulla Sabhari v. Janet Reno’s Empirical Analysis
197 F.3d 938 · 1999
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably Sulit v. Schiltgen (2000), Florentina Cardoso v. Janet Reno (2000)
5 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
Relies on Lutwak v. United States · Janet Reno, Attorney General v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee et al. · Dinesh Keshavi Shah v. Janet Reno Attorney General of the United States · Schneider v. United States · Abboud v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[§ 1252(g)] applies only to three discrete actions that the Attorney General may take: her “decision or action” to “commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders.” (Emphasis added.) There are of course many other decisions or actions that may be part of the deportation process — such as the decisions to open an investigation, to surveil the suspected violator, to reschedule the deportation hearing, to include various provisions in the final order that is the product of the adjudication, and to refuse reconsideration of that order. It is implausible that the mention of three discrete events along the road to deportation was a shorthand way of referring to all claims arising from deportation proceedings.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Section 1331 is familiar, of course, as the general grant of civil federal question jurisdiction to the district courts for actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.... Nevertheless, § 1SS1 does not, in and of itself, create substantive rights in suits brought against the United States....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“§ 1331 does not, in and of itself, create substantive rights in suits brought against the United States. Thus, if § 1331 is to be used to secure relief against the United States, it must be tied to some additional authority which waives the government's sovereign immunity.”
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.