Chung Ping Li v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
389 F.3d 892 · 2004
Citation profile
37 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably United States v. Aguila-Montes De Oca (2011), United States v. Vidal (2007)
37 federal appellate ·
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
Relies on Taylor v. United States · Stirone v. United States · Alvarez-Santos v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · United States v. Corona-Sanchez · United States v. Alvarez
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[t]he modified categorical approach ... only applies when the particular elements in the crime of conviction are broader than the generic crime. When the crime of conviction is missing an element of the generic crime altogether, we can never find that ‘a jury was actually required to find all the elements of the generic crime.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“if the record of conviction demonstrates that . . . Petitioner caused, or intended to cause, a loss . . . of more than $10,000, the modified categorical approach will be satisfied.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We first make a categorical comparison between the generic crime—-here, an “aggravated felony,” defined as an offense that “involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000,” 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(43)(M)(i)—and the elements of each particular offense of which Petitioner was convicted. If the statutory crime of conviction is broader than the generic crime (that is, if Petitioner could have been convicted under the statute for conduct that would not satisfy the generic crime) then we must move to the ‘modified categorical approach’: Under the modified categorical approach, we conduct a limited examination of documents in the record of conT viction to determine if there is sufficient evidence to conclude that a defendant was convicted of the elements of the generically defined crime even though his or her statute of conviction was facially overinclusive.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Eke v. Mukasey
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.