Nken v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
336 federal appellate · 209 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,525 later decisions (40 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2026 · most notably Kucana v. Holder (2010), Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell (2011)
336 federal appellate · 209 district · 34 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedNken v. Holder (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 2283 · 28 U.S.C. § 2349 · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1105A (§ 106 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (§ 208 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. § 1231 (§ 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca · Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr · Robinson v. Shell Oil Co. · Landis v. North American Co.
Cited together with Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Hilton v. Braunskill · Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Virginian Ry Co v. United States
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 1,525 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.”
80 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]t is not enough that the chance of success on the merits be better than negligible.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.