Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 607 F.3d 297 - Dobrova v. Holder

Dobrova v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis

607 F.3d 297 · 2010

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
2
states following
February 2025
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1151 (§ 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 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))

Relies on United States v. Wilson · Mendez v. Holder · Ali v. Mukasey · Jankowski-Burczyk v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · United States v. Aguilar

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

  1. “Statutory analysis necessarily begins with the plain meaning of a law's text and, absent ambiguity, will generally end there.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'necessarily begins with the plain meaning of a law's text and, absent ambiguity, will generally end there.' " United States v. Maynard , 743 F.3d 374 , 381 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Dobrova v. Holder , 607 F.3d 297 , 301 (2d Cir. 2009) ). "In conducting such an analysis, [the court will] 'review the statutory text, considering the ordinary or natural meaning of the words chosen by Congress, as well as the placement and purpose of those words in the statutory scheme.' " Id. (quoting Dobrova , 607 F.3d at 301 ). "[W]hen a statute is ambiguous[,] ... deals with especially complex matters,”
    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.