Nunez v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
594 F.3d 1124 · 2010
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1229B (§ 240a 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 Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · Miller v. California · Lawrence v. Texas · City of Erie v. Pap's A. M. · Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'moral turpitude' is perhaps the quintessential example of an ambiguous phrase,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We have previously discussed at some length the inherent ambiguity of the phrase 'moral turpitude' and the consistent failure of either the BIA or our own court to establish any coherent criteria for determining which crimes fall within that classification and which crimes do not.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The BIA's conclusion that a particular crime does or does not involve moral turpitude is subject to different standards of review depending on whether the BIA issues or relies on a published decision in coming to its conclusion.”
3 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.