Paulo v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
669 F.3d 911 · 2011
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1546 · 18 U.S.C. § 16 · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 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. § 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 Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr · State of New Hampshire v. State of Maine · Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie · United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co. · Taylor v. Sturgell
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the issue necessarily decided at the previous proceeding is identical to the one which is sought to be relitigated; (2) the first proceeding ended with a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom [issue preclusion] is asserted was a party or in privity with a party at the first proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he fact that a particular argument against Paulo's eligibility was not made by the government and not addressed by the district court does not mean that the issue of Paulo's eligibility for § 212(c) relief was not decided.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Janjua v. Neufeld“successive litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination essential to the prior judgment, even if the issue recurs in the context of a different claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. PAULOS VS. FCH1, LLC
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.