Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 204 F.3d 544 - Tasios v. Reno

Tasios v. Reno’s Empirical Analysis

204 F.3d 544 · 2000

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
November 2014
most recently cited

28 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 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))

Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Lindh v. Murphy · Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Bonjorno · Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc.

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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “in the years immediately preceding the enactment of AEDPA, immigration judges and the BIA granted over half of the § 212(c) applications they decided”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
    e.g. Olatunji v. Ashcroft · Enrico St. Cyr v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
  2. “If so, then in keeping with our traditional presumption against retroactivity, we presume that the statute does not apply to [the conduct at issue].”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Velasquez-Gabriel v. Crocetti · Chambers v. Reno
  3. “upset `reasonable, settled expectations and change the legal effect of prior conduct.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
    e.g. Enrico St. Cyr v. Immigration and Naturalization Service · Chambers v. Reno

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.