Munoz v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
339 F.3d 950 · 2003
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 106 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably Mohammed v. Gonzales (2005), Fernandez v. Gonzales (2006)
33 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1229B (§ 240a 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. § 1254 (§ 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson · Shaughnessy v. United States Ex Rel. Mezei · Fiallo Ex Rel. Rodriguez v. Bell · Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft · Oscar Socop-Gonzalez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[s]ince discretionary relief is a privilege created by Congress, denial of such relief cannot violate a substantive interest protected by the Due Process clause,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“may have affected the outcome of the proceedings.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We deny [the] petition because that is the proper conclusion under the statute and relevant precedent. But the result ... appears pointless and unjust.... We are unable to grant [the] petition, but we hope that appropriate officials within the executive branch, or possibly Congress, will take a careful look at this case and, if the facts are truly as they appear to us, consider whether removal of [the petitioner] is really the just and proper result here.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.