Elkins v. Moreno’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
159 federal appellate · 24 district · 73 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 431 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Plyler v. Doe (1982), Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005)
159 federal appellate · 24 district · 73 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Monroe v. Pape · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Bishop v. Wood · Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority · Weinberger v. Salfi
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 431 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he nonimmigrant classification is by no means homogeneous .... For example, Congress expressly conditioned admission for some purposes on an intent not to abandon a foreign residence or, by implication, on an intent not to seek domicile in the United States .... [A] nonimmigrant student is defined as "an alien having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning ... and who seeks to enter the United States temporarily and solely for ... study ....” § 101(a)(15)(F). See also ... § 101(a)(15)(H) (temporary worker having residence in foreign country "which he has no intention of abandoning"). ... But Congress did not restrict every nonimmigrant class. In particular, no restrictions on a nonimmigrant's intent were placed on [G-4] aliens ... [T]his was deliberate ... confirmed by the regulations ... which provide that G-4 aliens are admitted for an indefinite period ....”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“(T)he gravamen of their dispute is unquestionably whether, as a matter of federal and Maryland law, G-4 aliens can form the intent necessary to allow them to become domiciliaries of Maryland . Accordingly, the question whether G-4 aliens have the capacity to acquire Maryland domicile is potentially dispositive of this case. Since the resolution of the question turns on federal statutory law and Maryland common law as to each of which there are no controlling precedents, we first set out the correct meaning of federal law in this area and then sua sponte certify the case to the Court of Appeals of Maryland in order to clarify state law aspects of the domicile question. 98 S.Ct. 1345 , 1347.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Are persons residing in Maryland who hold or are named in a visa under 8 II. S. C. § 1101 (a) (15) (G) (iv) (1976 ed.), or who are financially dependent upon a person holding or named in such a visa, incapable as a matter of state law of becoming domiciliaries of Maryland?” Elkins v. Moreno, 435 U. S. 647, 669 , 98 S. Ct. 1338, 1351 , 55 L.Ed.2d 614 (1978).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.