DIAZ-LIZARRAGA’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
7 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (§ 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on 27 Cal. 4th 49 - People v. Avery · Marmolejo-Campos v. Holder · People v. Butler · 19 Cal. 4th 301 - People v. Davis · 21 Cal. 4th 935 - People v. Tufunga
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In most jurisdictions, legislation and judicial opinions have refined the distinction between substantial and de minimis takings to such an extent that the traditional dichotomy of permanent versus temporary takings has become anachronistic. In particular, responding to new economic and social realities, lawmakers and judges across the country have come to recognize that many temporary takings are as culpable as permanent ones.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'substantial and reprehensible deprivations of an owner's property on the one hand and, on the other, mere de minimis takings in which the owner's property rights [were] compromised little, if at all.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“is similar to the various statutes in this country covering 'joy riding' and does not comprehend theft of automobile or intent to deprive the owner thereof permanently, and, therefore, does not involve moral turpitude”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Martinez v. Sessions
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.