Romero v. Evans’s Empirical Analysis
2017
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2242 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 6 U.S.C. § 557 · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 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))
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Bennett v. Spear · Auer v. Robbins · Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“who are in 'withholding-only proceedings, having established a reasonable fear of persecution or torture, and such proceedings are not administratively final, or if final, a stay of removal has been granted by a U.S. Court of Appeals, and who, as of the time of filing the initial pleading in this case or at any time thereafter, are detained by, or on the authority of, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, within the state of Virginia.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Diaz v. Hott“; therefore, petitioners are being detained under § 1226(a). Respondents' arguments to the contrary are unavailing. First, they argue that the text of § 1226(a) supports their position because petitioners' removal orders have already been reinstated; as such, the decision on whether petitioners are”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Diaz v. Hott“from the United States. All that is clear is that they are removable. Turning to the text of § 1231(a)(5), respondents argue that the provision makes clear that the removal period has begun for petitioners. Because a reinstated removal order”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Diaz v. Hott
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.