Kawashima v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
565 U.S. 478 · 2012
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 6531 · 26 U.S.C. § 6663 · 26 U.S.C. § 7201 · 26 U.S.C. § 7203 · 26 U.S.C. § 7204 · 26 U.S.C. § 7206 · 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 · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr · Padilla v. Kentucky · Spies v. United States · Trw Inc v. Adelaide Andrews
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the term 'deceit' meant a [sic] 'the act or process of deceiving (as by falsification, concealment, or cheating).'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]e think the application of the present statute clear enough that resort to the rule of lenity is not warranted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“involve fraud or deceit [are] offenses with elements that necessarily entail fraudulent or deceitful conduct.”
1 later decision 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.