Enoh v. Sessions’s Empirical Analysis

2017

Citation profile

cited by 3 later decisions

January 2018

most recently cited

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (§ 236 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (§ 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)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1281 (§ 251 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on Zadvydas v. Davis · Department of the Interior and Bureau of Indian Affairss v. Klamath Water Users Protective Association · Wang v. Ashcroft J Ins Ins · Cruz v. Attorney General of the United States · Kanacevic 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“[although Lora involved an alien subject to mandatory detention under § 1226(c); this Court is aware of no reason why an alien detained for more than six months under § 1226(a) would have less of an entitlement to a bond hearing with the burden on the government to prove the need for detention by clear and convincing evidence.... If anything, an alien who is subject only to discretionary detention under § 1226(a) would seem to have a greater liberty interest than a criminal alien subject to mandatory detention under § 1226(c).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. Nguti v. Sessions
“would seem to have a greater liberty interest than a criminal alien.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. 283 F. Supp. 3d 205 - Brevil v. Jones

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.