Rubinstein v. Brownell’s Empirical Analysis
206 F.2d 449 · 1953
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1998 · most notably Shaughnessy v. Pedreiro (1955), Deering Milliken, Inc. v. Johnston (1961)
49 federal appellate · 3 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 5 U.S.C. § 1001 · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 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)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Estep v. United States · Carlson v. Landon · Bridges v. Wixon · Sunal v. Large · Heikkila v. Barber
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“no suggestion that [detainee] will flee or hide”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In the absence of clear language to the contrary, we cannot construe the statute to give the Attorney General unbridled license to exercise his discretion as to detention in whatever arbitrary or capricious way he might see fit, provided only that he act with reasonable dispatch to obtain a decision as to the alien’s deportability. On the contrary, we think his discretion as to keeping an alien in custody is judicially reviewable to the same extent it was before. Section 242 provides but an added statutory recognition of a basis for judicial review, not a limitation upon the power as it had existed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“To justify the proposed arrest the appellee relies on § 242(c) of the 1952 Act.. We think it inapplicable. The six-month: period during which § 242(c) gives the Attorney General discretion to detain an alien who has been ordered deported begins to run “if judicial review is :had, then from the date of the final order of the court”. There has not yet been a final order of the court. The purpose of the detention authorized by § 242(c) is “to effect the alien’s departure from the United States”. All agree that departure cannot be effected while the deportation order is under review.”
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.