Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 383 F.3d 968 - Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft

Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis

383 F.3d 968 · 2004

Citation profile

373
cited by 373 later decisions
August 2023
most recently cited

32 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 373 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Lara-Torres v. Gonzales (2004), Oh v. Gonzales (2005)

32 federal appellate ·

3250200420102020decided

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. § 1229B (§ 240a 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)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1254 (§ 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Ventura · Lassiter v. Department of Social Services of Durham County North Carolina · Shobna Chandar Lata v. Immigration and Naturalization Service · Martinez-Serrano v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

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

  1. “arbitrarily, irrationally or contrary to law”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[n]one of [Petitioner’s] purported deficiencies pertain to the actual substance of the hearing (e.g., evidence presented or omitted, arguments raised or overlooked), let alone call the hearing’s fairness into question. The basic “unfairness” of which the Petitioners complain is that they never would have been subject to removal proceedings had it not been for their reliance on [their lawyer’s] unfortunate immigration-law advice. This “unfairness,” however, did not taint the “fairness” of the hearing.”
    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.