Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 365 F.3d 813 - Avendano-Ramirez v. Ashcroft

Avendano-Ramirez v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis

365 F.3d 813 · 2004

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
March 2020
most recently cited

25 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently March 2020 · most notably Kwai Fun Wong v. United States (2004), Subhan v. Ashcroft (2004)

25 federal appellate ·

380200420102020decided

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. § 1225 (§ 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Elias-Zacarias · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr · Immigration and Naturalization Service, v. Juan Anibal Aguirre-Aguirre · Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft

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.

  1. “It is true that in this instance the attack on the earlier order itself is collateral in nature, but our review would necessarily involve entertaining a claim arising from the removal order because we would be asked to nullify the continuing effects of that order.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “we [were] asked to perform a direct appeal review of a claim `arising from or relating to the implementation . . . of an order of removal pursuant to section 1225(b)(1).'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “`an alien who has been ordered removed under section 1225(b)(1) of this title. . . and who again seeks admission from within 5 years of the date of such removal'”
    4 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.