Kaur v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
561 F.3d 957 · 2009
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 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)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1253 (§ 243 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Plyler v. Doe · Spencer v. Kemna · Shaughnessy v. United States Ex Rel. Mezei · Zadvydas v. Davis · Clark Field Office Director Seattle Immigration and Customs Enforcement et al. v. Martinez
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.
“this sort of passing statement does not constitute an adverse credibility finding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ming Dai v. Sessions
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.