Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 450 F.3d 944 - Schneider v. Chertoff

Schneider v. Chertoff’s Empirical Analysis

450 F.3d 944 · 2006

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
December 2020
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 5 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably Ramadan v. Gonzales (2007), Coyt v. Holder (2010)

10 federal appellate · 5 district ·

150200620102020decided

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 5 U.S.C. § 553 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 6 U.S.C. § 291 · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1103 (§ 103 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1153 (§ 203 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1154 (§ 204 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1229B (§ 240a of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Robinson v. Shell Oil Co. · Lamie v. United States Trustee · Perrin v. United States

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

  1. “First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines that Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute, as would be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on the permissible construction of the statute.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[W]e must reject those [agency] constructions that are contrary to clear congressional intent or that frustrate the policy that Congress sought to implement.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(1) injury in fact; (2) causation; and (3) likelihood that a favorable decision will redress the injury.”
    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.