Smalley v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
354 F.3d 332 · 2003
Citation profile
36 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Navarro-Lopez v. Gonzales (2007), Partyka v. Attorney General of the United States (2005)
36 federal appellate ·
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. § 1952 · 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 4 · 31 U.S.C. § 5324 (§ 1354 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (§ 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Spies v. United States · Jordan v. De George · United States v. Bajakajian · Jean Patrick Michel v. Immigration and Naturalization Service · Ernest Iskandar Nehme 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“moral turpitude has been defined as an act which is per se morally reprehensible and intrinsically wrong, or malum in se, so it is the nature of the act itself and not the statutory prohibition of it which renders a crime one of moral turpitude,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“this two-step approach provides both consistency—concerning the meaning of [the statute at issue]—and a proper regard for the BIA's administrative role—interpretation of federal immigration laws.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“always ha[s] jurisdiction to consider whether . . . specific conditions exist that bar . . . jurisdiction over the merits, namely, whether the petitioner is (1) an alien, (2) who is deportable, (3) for committing the type of crime that bars [this court's] review.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lee v. Gonzales
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.