Devitri v. Cronen’s Empirical Analysis
2017
Citation profile
3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (§ 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1229A (§ 240 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 Mathews v. Eldridge · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr · Armstrong v. Manzo · Janet Reno, Attorney General v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee et al.
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Judicial review of all questions of law and fact, including interpretation and application of constitutional and statutory provisions, arising from any action taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien from the United States under this subchapter shall be available only in judicial review of a final order under this section. Except as otherwise provided in this section, no court shall have jurisdiction, by habeas corpus under section 2241 of Title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision, by section 1361 or 1651 of such title, or by any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), to review such an order or such questions of law or fact.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jimenez v. Nielsen“for a provisional waiver under 8 C.F.R. § 212.7 (e)(4)(i) or (vi). VI. JURISDICTION 28 U.S.C. § 2241 gives district courts jurisdiction to grant a writ of habeas corpus to individuals in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. The respondents do not dispute that the petitioners are all”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jimenez v. Nielsen“the jurisdictional bar in 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (g) would preclude Petitioners from raising their new legal claims in a manner which comports with the law, in violation of the Suspension Clause.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.