604 F. Supp. 675 - Ledesma-Valdes v. Sava’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently September 2003
5 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 8 U.S.C. § 1105A (§ 106 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1225 (§ 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1362 (§ 292 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Van Dusen v. Barrack · Morris v. Slappy · Jones v. Cunningham · Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky · Shaughnessy v. United States Ex Rel. Mezei
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the issue ... is not where respondent placed the petitioners while they were in his custody, but whether the Court had jurisdiction over respondent as petitioners' custodian at the time the petition was filed and the order to show cause served.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the mere existence of family relationships is insufficient to mandate parole.” Ledesma-Valdes v. Sava, 604 F.Supp. 675, 681 (S.D.N.Y.1985). Instead, ”[t]he close family relative must be eligible to file and have filed a visa petition on behalf of the detainee.”
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.