Soliman v. Gonzales’s Empirical Analysis
419 F.3d 276 · 2005
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2022 · most notably Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez (2007), Francis v. Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc. (2006)
44 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Taylor v. United States · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca · Shepard v. United States · United States v. Nordic Village, Inc.
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In order to give proper effect to the intention of Congress that theft and fraud offenses are to be treated differently for purposes of an “aggravated felony” issue, a proper definition of the term “theft offense” must distinguish between such an offense and a fraud scheme. And the key distinction on that point is the “without consent” element, present in the classic definition of a theft offense.... [T]he BIA’s definition of “theft offense” makes the fraud provision of Subsection (M)(i) superfluous, and it results in an outcome that is contrary to Congress’s explicit inclusion of a $10,000 threshold for fraud offenses into Subsection (M)(i)—transforming all fraud offenses into theft offenses, and thus also into aggravated felonies under § 1101(a)(43).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“When a theft offense has occurred, property has been obtained from its owner “without consent”; in a fraud "scheme, the owner has voluntarily “surrendered” his property, because of an “intentional perversion of truth,” or otherwise “act[ed] upon” a false representation to his injury. The key and controlling distinction between these two crimes is therefore the “consent” element—theft occurs without consent, while fraud occurs with consent that has been unlaw- ' fully obtained.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“without consent” of the property owner. In so doing, the BIA authorized a fraud offense to satisfy the”
2 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.