Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 383 F.3d 144 - Singh v. Ashcroft

Singh v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis

383 F.3d 144 · 2004

Citation profile

140
cited by 140 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

61 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 140 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably Nijhawan v. Holder (2009), Alaka v. Attorney General of the United States (2006)

61 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

800200420102020decided

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. § 16 · 18 U.S.C. § 3509 · 18 U.S.C. § 3559 · 18 U.S.C. § 656 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Taylor v. United States · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca · Dia v. Ashcroft · Sandoval v. Reno

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 140 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “do not look to underlying facts because the enumerating statute does not invite any such inquiry”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “`must look only to the statutory, definitions of the prior offenses,' and may not `consider other evidence concerning the defendant's prior crimes,' including, `the particular facts underlying [a] conviction[ ].'”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “disjunctive phrasing of the statute of conviction . . . invite[s] inquiry into the specifics of the conviction.”
    5 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.