Chhoeun v. Marin’s Empirical Analysis
2018
Citation profile
2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Padilla v. Kentucky · Bridges v. Wixon
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.
“no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this chapter.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“consistently held that district courts have jurisdiction when, as in this case, petitioners do not directly challenge their orders of removal, but rather assert a due process right to challenge the orders in the appropriate court”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“a brief stay of deportations during which [the plaintiffs could seek to] reopen their immigration proceedings and challenge their removal orders.”
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.