Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 686 F.3d 1033 - Planes v. Holder

Planes v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis

686 F.3d 1033 · 2012

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
January 2014
most recently cited

3 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1029 · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation Same · Michael Wayne Williams v. John Taylor Warden · Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid · Leocal v. Ashcroft

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

  1. “(1) a judge or jury has found the alien guilty or he has entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or has admitted sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilty; (2) the judge has ordered some form of punishment, penalty, or restraint on the person’s liberty to be imposed (including but not limited to incarceration, probation, a fine or restitution, or community; based sanctions such as a rehabilitation program, a work-release or. study-release program, revocation or suspension of a driver’s license, deprivation of nonessential activities or privileges, or community service); and (3) a judgment or adjudication of guilt may be entered if the, person violates the terms of his probation or fails to comply with the requirements of the court’s order, without availability of further proceedings regarding the person’s guilt or innocence of the original charge.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Nothing in IIRIRA or its legislative history suggests that Congress intended the phrase “formal judgment of guilt” to be interpreted any differently from how it always had been interpreted prior to the enactment of the statute.... The elimination of the finality provision for deferred adjudications, along with the failure to make any change in the language regarding direct appeals as of right ... demonstrates Congress’ intent to retain the finality rule for the latter category of appeals.”
    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.