Marcello v. Bonds’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
540 federal appellate · 44 district · 51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 910 later decisions (28 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Doherty (1992), Woodby v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (1966)
540 federal appellate · 44 district · 51 state decisions — followed in 14 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
reviewedMarcello v. Ahrens (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 5 U.S.C. § 1001 · 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. § 1252 (§ 242 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 United States Accardi v. Shaughnessy · Calder et Wife, v. Bull et Wife. · Harisiades v. Shaughnessy · Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath · Bridges v. Wixon
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 910 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he procedure so prescribed shall be the sole and exclusive procedure for determining the deportability of an alien under this section.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Th[is] contention [of bias] is without substance when considered against the long-standing practice in deportation proceedings, judicially approved in numerous decisions in the federal courts, and against the special considerations applicable to deportation which the Congress may take into account in exercising its particularly broad discretion in immigration matters.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e cannot ignore ... the direction in the statute that the methods therein prescribed shall be the sole and exclusive procedure for deportation proceedings. Unless we are to require Congress to employ magical passwords in order to effectuate an exemption from the Administrative Procedure Act, we must hold that the present statute expressly supersedes the hearing provisions of that Act.”
6 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.