523 F. Supp. 2d 30 - Orlov v. Howard’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

cited by 10 later decisions

March 2016

most recently cited

7 district ·

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 5 U.S.C. § 551 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 555 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 701 · 5 U.S.C. § 702 · 5 U.S.C. § 706 · 6 U.S.C. § 271 · 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Conley v. Gibson · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Erickson v. Pardus · Bell v. Hood

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

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory) ... no court shall have jurisdiction to review ... any other decision or action of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 710 F. Supp. 2d 123 - Singh v. Napolitano
“In the absence of statutorily prescribed time limitations or statutory factors to guide USCIS in crafting regulations for the adjustment process, it is difficult to determine how the pace of processing an application could be anything other than discretionary.”). 25 . Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint also cites the APA's grant of judicial authority”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Nine Iraqi Allies Under Serious Threat Because of Their Faithful Service to the United States v. Kerry
“no statutory guidelines compelling USCIS to adjudicate adjustment of status applications within a certain period of time.” Id. at 36 . Thus, the Orlov court held that the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 853 F. Supp. 2d 1 - Beshir v. Holder

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.