Lopez-Gabriel v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
653 F.3d 683 · 2011
Citation profile
8 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 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 Elkins v. United States · United States v. Janis · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Lopez-Mendoza · United States v. Drayton · Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. M Scott
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The case for exclusion of evidence is even weaker where the alleged misconduct was committed by an agent of a separate sovereign. If evidence were suppressed in a federal civil immigration proceeding, any deterrent effect on a local police officer would be highly attenuated.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“doubt that even an egregious violation by a state officer would justify suppression of evidence in a federal immigration proceeding,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sanchez v. Sessions“[A]dministrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sanchez v. Sessions
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.