Belbacha v. Bush’s Empirical Analysis
520 F.3d 452 · 2008
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently July 2023
10 federal appellate · 4 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
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 801 (Military Justice Act of 1968) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (§ 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Bell v. Hood · United States v. United Mine Workers of America · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr · Adams v. United States Ex Rel. McCann
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination. (2) ... [N]o court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Al-Nashiri · In re Al-Nashiri“1. whether the movant has shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; 2. whether the movant would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted; 3. whether the issuance of a preliminary injunction would cause substantial harm to other interested parties; and 4. whether the public interest would be served by the issuance of an injunction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“when the Supreme Court grants certiorari to review this court’s determination that the district court lacks jurisdiction, a court can, pursuant to the All Writs Act ... and during the pendency of the Supreme Court’s review, act to preserve the status quo,” but only, we added,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kiyemba v. Obama
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.