Espin v. Gantner’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (§ 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Heckler v. Ringer · Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Bagamasbad · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Miranda · Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he process of immigration status adjustment is not susceptible to mandamus jurisdiction because it is wholly discretionary with the Attorney General”); Hui Jin Zheng v. Reno, 166 F.Supp.2d 875, 879 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (holding that “there is no requirement that [an application to adjust immigration status] be decided within a specific period of time”). Cf. Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 766 , 92 S.Ct. 2576 , 33 L.Ed.2d 683 (1972) (”
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.