Jimenez v. Cronen’s Empirical Analysis
2018
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 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)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (§ 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Morrissey v. Brewer · United States v. Nixon · United States v. Salerno · Schlup v. Delo
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“all 'persons' within the United States, including aliens, [regardless of] whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jimenez v. Nielsen“pursuant to the [alleged] erroneous application or interpretation of relevant law,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jimenez v. Nielsen“), an agency of the Department of Homeland Security (”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jimenez v. Nielsen
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.