Ex parte Duque’s Empirical Analysis
2017
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 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. § 1229B (§ 240a of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Hill v. Lockhart · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr · Padilla v. Kentucky · Lafler v. Cooper
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A failure by counsel to affirmatively and correctly advise a defendant regarding the clear deportation consequences of his plea will render counsel's performance constitutionally deficient, thereby satisfying the first Strickland prong.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ex parte Aguilera“that Appellant would have not accepted plea had he known that he would be deported and, instead, record supported habeas court's implied finding that he failed to prove that decision”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ex parte Aguilera“Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However, we review de novo mixed questions of law and fact that do not depend upon credibility and demeanor. See ids=”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ex parte Aguilera
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.