Dickson v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
346 F.3d 44 · 2003
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently January 2023 · most notably Abimbola v. Ashcroft (2004), Conteh v. Gonzales (2006)
49 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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 18 U.S.C. § 16 · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 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. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · United States v. Corona-Sanchez · United States of America v. Moises Chapa-Garza · Arango-Aradondo v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Jean Patrick Michel 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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or (b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the charging document, a plea agreement, a verdict or judgment of conviction, a record of the sentence, or a plea colloquy transcript.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“marihuana,” see, e.g., 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b)(4), we use that spelling throughout this opinion. 3 . The INA, in explaining the consequences of an aggravated felony, states that "[a]ny alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony ... is deportable,” INA § 237(a)(2)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (a)(2) (A)(iii) (emphasis added), and that "[t]he Attorney General may cancel removal in the case of an alien ... [who] has not been convicted of any aggravated felony,” INA § 240A(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3) (emphasis added). The only question therefore relevant to evaluating any individual case is what was encompassed in the conviction. 4 . There is a limited exception: "When 'a criminal statute encompasses diverse classes of criminal acts — some of which would categorically be grounds for removal and others of which would not' — we have held that [the] statute[] can be considered divisible’; the agency may then 'refer[] to the record of conviction for the limited purpose of determining whether the alien's conviction was under the branch of the statute that permits removal.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.