Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 602 F.2d 608 - So Chun Chung v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Service

So Chun Chung v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Service’s Empirical Analysis

602 F.2d 608 · 1979

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
September 2010
most recently cited

25 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently September 2010 · most notably Tipu v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (1994), Santana-Figueroa v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (1981)

25 federal appellate ·

20019791980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Graham v. Richardson · Siang Ken Wang v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “On judicial review of a final order of deportation, the standard of review is whether the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of petitioner's request for withholding of deportation under Sec. 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1253(h), was an abuse of discretion. 5 We will not disturb the Board's exercise of discretion unless we find”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “factors that are not germane to the eligibility requirements set out in the Act,”
    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.