Barber v. Gonzales’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
261 federal appellate · 20 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 409 later decisions (26 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2020 · most notably Rosenberg v. Fleuti (1963), Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Errico Scott (1966)
261 federal appellate · 20 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedGonzales v. Barber (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Fong Haw Tan v. Phelan · Delgadillo v. Carmichael · Lewis v. Frick · Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt
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 409 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The word 'entry' (in 19(a)) by its own force implies a coming from outside. The context shows that in order that there be an entry within the meaning of the act there must be an arrival from some foreign port or place. There is no such entry where one goes to sea on board an American vessel from a port of the United States and returns to the same or another port of this country without having been in any foreign port or place.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although not penal in character, deportation statutes as a practical matter may inflict `the equivalent of banishment or exile', Fong Haw Tan v. Phelan, 333 U.S. 6 , 10, [68 S.Ct. 374, 92 L.Ed. 433] and should be strictly construed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““At the time respondent came to the continental United States, he was not arriving ‘from some foreign port or place.’ On the contrary, he was a United States national moving from one of our insular possessions to the mainland. It was not until the 1934 Philippine Independence Act that the Philippines could be regarded as ‘foreign’ for immigration purposes. Having made no ‘entry,’ respondent is not deportable under § 19(a) as an alien who ‘after entry’ committed crimes involving moral turpitude.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Savoretti v. Voiler
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.