Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 383 F.3d 302 - Peters v. Ashcroft

Peters v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis

383 F.3d 302 · 2004

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
2
states following
January 2023
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently January 2023 · most notably Disabled in Action of Pennsylvania v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (2008), Mizrahi v. Gonzales (2007)

9 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

150200420102020decided

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. § 1227 (§ 237 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 Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Immigration and Naturalization Service, v. Juan Anibal Aguirre-Aguirre · District of Columbia v. Greater Washington Board of Trade · Mikhael v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · State v. Mott

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

  1. “shall be filed in the court of appeals for the judicial circuit in which the immigration judge completed the proceedings,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “on its face constitutes a violation of a law 'relating to a controlled substance'”
    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.