Barron v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
358 F.3d 674 · 2004
Citation profile
75 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,993 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey (2008), Tijani v. Holder (2010)
75 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 8 U.S.C. § 1105A (§ 106 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))
Relies on Estelle v. Gamble · Weinberger v. Salfi · McCarthy v. Madigan · Coit Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Savings & Loan Insurance
Cited together with Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Elias-Zacarias · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Ventura · Shobna Chandar Lata v. Immigration and Naturalization Service · Farah v. Ashcroft · Zehatye v. Gonzales
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 1,993 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] court may review a final order of removal only if — ... (2) another court has not decided the validity of the order, unless the reviewing court finds that the petition presents grounds that could not have been presented in the prior judicial proceeding or that the remedy provided by the prior proceeding was inadequate or ineffective to test the validity of the order.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“generally bars us, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, from reaching the merits of a legal claim not presented in administrative proceedings below”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'procedural error’ that an administrative tribunal could remedy” before we may consider such claims upon a petition for review). 5 . Moreover, the Mercados' asserted right to family unity is implausible. True, the Supreme Court has consistently defined”
2 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.