Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 468 F.3d 81 - Lopes v. Gonzales

Lopes v. Gonzales’s Empirical Analysis

468 F.3d 81 · 2006

Citation profile

71
cited by 71 later decisions
October 2022
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently October 2022 · most notably Gomez-Palacios v. Holder (2009), Alrefae v. Chertoff (2006)

18 federal appellate · 1 district ·

360200620102020decided

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 8 U.S.C. § 1229 (§ 239 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1229A (§ 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1252B (§ 242b of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (§ 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on Salta v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · GRIJALVA · Anderson v. McElroy · Joshi 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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Although an affidavit of non-receipt might be insufficient by itself to rebut the presumption [of receipt], it does raise a factual issue that the BIA must resolve by taking account of all relevant evidence . . . .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a 'strong presumption' of effective service,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[a]s the use of the word `receive' [in 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii)] establishes, when considering the motion to reopen, the central issue no longer is whether the notice was properly mailed (as it is for the purpose of initially entering the in absentia order), but rather whether the alien actually received the notice.”
    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.