Mushtaq v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
583 F.3d 875 · 2009
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · United States v. Mead Corp. · International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement v. Johnson Controls, Inc. · Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York v. Hilton-Green
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] reviewing court ... may reject even an agreed standard”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under Chevron, when reviewing an agency’s construction of a statute that it administers, a court must determine first whether Congress has directly spoken to the question at issue. If so, the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If not, the court must determine whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute. If Congress has explicitly left a gap for the agency to fill, there is an express delegation of authority to the agency to elucidate a specific provision of the statute by regulation. Courts give agency interpretations controlling weight unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Siwe 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.