Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 557 U.S. 29 - Nijhawan v. Holder

Nijhawan v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis

557 U.S. 29 · 2009

Citation profile

1,085
cited by 1,085 later decisions
48
cited 48 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
July 2025
most recently cited

494 federal appellate · 23 district · 30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,085 later decisions (48 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2025 · most notably Descamps v. United States (2013), Johnson v. United States (2010)

494 federal appellate · 23 district · 30 state decisions — followed in 10 states

9450200920102020decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 801 (§ 101 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 802 (§ 102 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 951 (Controlled Substances Import and Export Act) · 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))

Relies on Taylor v. United States · Shepard v. United States · James v. United States · Chambers v. United States · IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez

Cited together with Taylor v. United States · Shepard v. United States · Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez · James v. United States · Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

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 1,085 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “an offense ... in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000”
    16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “in ordinary speech words such as 'crime,' 'felony,' 'offense,' and the like sometimes refer to a generic crime, say, the crime of fraud or theft in general, and sometimes refer to the specific acts in which an offender engaged on a specific occasion, say, the fraud that the defendant planned and executed last month.”
    14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[S]ometimes a separately numbered subsection of a criminal statute will refer to several different crimes, each described separately. And it can happen that some of these crimes involved violence while others do not. A single Massachusetts statute section entitled “Breaking and Entering at Night,” for example, criminalizes breaking into a “building, ship, vessel or vehicle.” Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 266, § 16 (West 2006). In such an instance, we have said, a court must determine whether an offender’s prior conviction was for the violent, rather than the nonviolent, break-ins that this single five-word phrase describes (e.g., breaking into a building rather than a vessel), by examining “the indictment or information and jury instructions,” or, if a guilty plea is at issue, by examining the plea agreement, plea colloquy, or “some comparable judicial record” of the factual basis for the plea.”
    11 later decisions 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.