Irina Gorbach v. Janet Reno’s Empirical Analysis
219 F.3d 1087 · 2000
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. (2001), Hector Tito Lujan-Armendariz v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Mauro Roldan-Santoyo v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (2000)
34 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 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
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Sosna v. Iowa · Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. P Casey P Casey · Food & Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. · Immigration and Naturalization Service, v. Juan Anibal Aguirre-Aguirre
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] particular statutory provision must be read in context with a view to its place in the statutory scheme.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“making the Attorney General's injunction effective for the entire country. 9 The INS brought an interlocutory appeal 18 and initially prevailed. 19 But we decided to rehear the case en banc. 20 This decision is substituted for the decision of the three-judge panel. 10 A district court's decision to grant a preliminary injunction is generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 21 However,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“). The 1990 Act retained S 340(a), but repealed the saving clause at S 340(j)(redesignated S 340(i) in 1988). No new denaturalization power or procedure was created. Thus, denaturalization procedure reverted to its pre-1952 state. See 54 United States v. Philbrick, 120 U.S. 52, 57-58 (1887). Under pre-1952 law, of course, as construed in Bindczyck and Zucca, the exclusive method of denaturalization was a S 340(a) proceeding. 55 The only new wrinkle, obviously, in the 1990 Act was the insertion of a different saving clause which provided that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Gorbach 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.