Rabang v. Boyd’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2015 · most notably Perez v. Brownell (1958), Perdomo-Padilla v. Ashcroft (2003)
52 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 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
reviewedRabang v. Boyd (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 22 U.S.C. § 1281 · 22 U.S.C. § 1281A · 22 U.S.C. § 1394 · 48 U.S.C. § 733 · 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. § 1253 (§ 243 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1402 (§ 302 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Downes v. Bidwell · Fong Yue Ting v. United States · Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Taggart · Barber v. Gonzales · 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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(1) For the purposes of the Im-. migration Act of 1917, the Immigration Act of 1924 (except 13(c)), this section, and all other laws of the United States relating to the immigration, exclusion, or expulsion of aliens, citizens of the Philippine Islands who are not citizens of the United States shall be considered as if they were aliens. For such purposes the Philippine Islands shall be considered as a separate country and shall have each fiscal year a quota of fifty. This paragraph shall not apply to a person coming or seek- ' ing to come to the Territory of Hawaii who does not apply for and secure an immigration or passport visa, but such immigration shall be determined by the Department of Interior on the basis of the needs of industries in the Territory of Hawaii. “(2) Citizens of the Philippine Islands who are not citizens of the United States shall not be admitted to the continental United States from the Territory of Hawaii (whether entering such Territory before or after the effective date of this section) unless they belong to a class declared to be nonimmigrants by section 3 of the Immigration Act of 1924 or to a class declared to be nonquota immigrants under the provisions of section 4 of such Act other than subdivision (c) thereof, or unless they were admitted to such Territory under an immigration visa. The Attorney General shall by regulations provide a method for such exclusion and for the admission of such excepted classes.” See note 1 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Section 14 of the Independence Act in clear language applies 'to persons who were born in the Philippine Islands.' This language demonstrates, and we hold, as did the courts below, that persons born in the Islands, and who thereby were nationals of the United States became aliens on July 4, 1946, regardless of permanent residence in the continental United States on that date.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Upon the final and complete withdrawal of American sovereignty over the Philippine Islands the immigration laws of the United States (including all the provisions thereof relating to persons ineligible to citizenship) shall apply to persons who were born in the Philippine Islands to the same extent as in the case of other foreign countries.”
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.