Arobelidze v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
653 F.3d 513 · 2011
Citation profile
29 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1154 (§ 204 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. · Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca · United States v. Mead Corp. · Christensen v. Harris County
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, [and] its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mendoza v. Sessions“usually forecloses a petitioner from raising an issue in federal court that was not raised before the immigration tribunal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“meant to be an ameliorative statute, applying to as many parties as practicable.”
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.