Restrepo v. McElroy’s Empirical Analysis
369 F.3d 627 · 2004
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 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))
Relies on Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr · Auer v. Robbins · Tollett v. Henderson · Christensen v. Harris County
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[L]ike the aliens in St. Cyr, who sacrificed something of value — their right to a jury trial, at which they could obtain outright acquittal — in the expectation that their guilty pleas would leave them eligible for [§ ] 212(c) relief, an alien like [Restrepo] also sacrificed something— the shot at obtaining [§ ] 212(c) relief by immediately filing an application — in order to increase his chances of obtaining such relief later on.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Having concluded that Petitioner’s retroactivity argument is valid, we remand this case to the district court for it to determine whether Petitioner can himself claim the benefit of this argument. We do so because we deem it wise to let the district court decide, in the first instance, whether an alien such as Petitioner must make an individualized showing that he decided to forgo an opportunity to file for 212(c) relief in reliance on his ability to file at a later date (and, if he must, whether Petitioner can do so), or whether, instead, a categoñcál presumption of reliance by any alien who might have applied for 212(c) relief when it was available, but did not do so, is more appropriate.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he Court never suggested that all parties who claim that a statute has a retroactive effect must show the disruption of a quid pro quo exchange. And it would be out of keeping with the reasoning of St. Cyr [ ] to read such a quid pro quo requirement into that opinion. For in St. Cyr [ ], the Court observed that `categorical arguments are not particularly helpful in undertaking Landgraf's commonsense, functional retroactivity analysis.'”
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.