United States Claussen v.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

109 federal appellate · 29 district ·

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

1. ““The word ‘entry’ by its own force implies a coming from outside. The context shows that in order that there be an entry within the meaning of the act there must be an arrival from some foreign port or place. There is no such entry where one goes to sea on board an American vessel from a port of the United States and returns to the same or another port of this country without having been in any foreign port or place. See sections 19, 32, 33, 35 [ 39 Stat. 874 , 8 USCA §§ 155, 168, 169]. “And it is clear that petitioner departed from the United States on the Elisha Atkins and that, when he landed at Boston on his return from South American and Cuban ports, be made an entry into the United States within the meaning of the act.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McCandless v. United States ex rel. Pantoja · United States v. Yong Jun Li

2. ““§ 156. Ports to which aliens to be deported; cost of deportation— “The deportation of aliens provided for in this chapter shall, at the option of the Attorney General, be to the country whence they came or to the foreign port at which such aliens embarked for the United States; or, if such embarkation was for foreign contiguous territory, to the foreign port at which they embarked for such territory; or, if such aliens entered foreign contiguous territory from the United States and later entered the United States, or, if such aliens are held by the country from which they entered the United States not to be subjects or citizens of such country, and such country refuses to permit their reentry, or imposes any condition upon permitting reentry, then to the country of which such aliens are subjects or citizens, or to the country in which they resided pri- or to entering the country from which they entered the United States. If deportation proceedings are instituted at any time within five years after the entry of the alien, such deportation, including one-half of the entire cost of removal to the port of deportation, shall be at the expense of the contractor, procurer, or other person by whom the alien was unlawfully induced to enter the United States, or, if that can not be done, then the cost of removal to the port of deportation shall be at the expense of the appropriation for the enforcement of the laws regulating immigration of aliens into the United States, and the deport”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Delgadillo v. Carmichael · 49 F. Supp. 104 - Glikas v. Tomlinson

3. “. . . any alien who is hereafter sentenced to imprisonment for a term of one year or more because of conviction in this country of a crime involving moral turpitude, committed within five years after the entry of the alien to the United States . . . shall, upon the warrant of the Attorney General, be taken into custody and deported. . . .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Delgadillo v. Carmichael