Efagene v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
642 F.3d 918 · 2011
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1201 (International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993) · 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (§ 237 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 Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Taylor v. United States · Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca · United States v. Mead Corp.
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.
“conduct which is inherently base, vile, or depraved, contrary to the accepted rules of morality.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“for an offense to involve moral turpitude, it must require a reprehensible or despicable act. Moral turpitude reaches conduct that is inherently wrong, or malum in se, rather than conduct deemed wrong only because of a statutory proscription, malum prohibitum. A crime of moral turpitude, moreover, necessarily involves an evil intent or maliciousness in carrying out the reprehensible act.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“is not a crime involving moral turpitude as a categorical matter.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.