Dabaghian v. Civiletti’s Empirical Analysis
607 F.2d 868 · 1979
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently August 2012 · most notably Agyeman v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (2002), Hernandez v. Ashcroft (2003)
19 federal appellate · 1 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 8 U.S.C. § 1151 (§ 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1153 (§ 203 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1154 (§ 204 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1184 (§ 214 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (§ 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1256 (§ 246 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Bark v. Immigration and Naturalization Service · Menezes v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Gisela Irene Whetstone v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Edward Levi, Attorney General of the United States · Chan v. Bell
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[e]vidence that the parties separated after their wedding is relevant to ascertaining whether they intended to establish a life together when they exchanged marriage vows. But evidence of separation, standing alone, cannot support a finding that a marriage was not bona fide when it was entered.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If a marriage is not sham or fraudulent from its inception, it is valid for the purposes of determining eligibility for adjustment of status under § 245 of the [Immigration and Nationality] Act until it is legally dissolved.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“at the time of adjustment. For the INS to give such an interpretation to”
2 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.