Jahed v. Acri’s Empirical Analysis
468 F.3d 230 · 2006
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently February 2023
8 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
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 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (§ 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (§ 237 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. § 1431 (§ 320 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1432 (§ 321 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Williams v. State of North Carolina · United States v. Wong Kim Ark · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Pangilinan · Agosto v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Bagot v. Ashcroft
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the parties were married in the jurisdiction where they were subsequently divorced: (2) they lived in that jurisdiction as husband and wife for a period of time; (3) although they were not personally before the divorcing court, or even within the jurisdiction at the time of the divorce, both parties had notice of the action and either appeared by counsel or consented to personal jurisdiction; and (4) in the Hansen and Oettgen cases, and doubtless in Gonzalez as well, both parties to the divorce were citizens of the country granting the divorce.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Annan v. Lynch“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall have jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mironescu v. Costner
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.