United States Accardi v. Shaughnessy’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
1,256 federal appellate · 296 district · 361 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,927 later decisions (43 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2025 · most notably United States v. Nixon (1974), Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr (2001)
1,256 federal appellate · 296 district · 361 state decisions — followed in 27 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedUnited States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1251 (§ 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 Bridges v. Wixon · United States Bilokumsky v. Tod · Salinger v. Loisel · Nishimura Ekiu v. United States
Cited together with Service v. Dulles · Vitarelli v. Seaton · Morton v. Ruiz · Jay v. Boyd · United States v. Nixon
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 2,927 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(i)n considering and determining . . . appeals, the Board of Immigration Appeals shall exercise such discretion and power conferred upon the Attorney General by law as is appropriate and necessary for the disposition of the case. The decision of the Board . . . shall be final except in those cases reviewed by the Attorney General (as further provided for herein).”
20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is important to emphasize that we are not here reviewing and reversing the manner in which discretion was exercised. If such were the case we would be discussing the evidence in the record supporting or undermining the alien’s claim to discretionary relief. Rather, we object to the Board’s alleged failure to exercise its own discretion, contrary to existing valid regulations.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[r]egulations with the force and effect of law,”
5 later decisions 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.