Madrigal v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
572 F.3d 239 · 2009
Citation profile
11 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1229 (§ 239 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Kontrick v. Ryan · Yu Zhao v. Gonzales · Perkovic v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Liti v. Gonzales · Patel v. U.S. Attorney General
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The government forcibly removed [the petitioner] from the United States, and now claims she abandoned her appeal because she left the country. To state that argument should be to refute it....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Coyt v. Holder
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.