Patel v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
707 F.3d 77 · 2013
Citation profile
9 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 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))
Relies on Morissette v. United States · SILVA-TREVINO · Ming Lam Sui v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Conteh v. Gonzales · State v. Spillane
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.
“our review is limited to the reasoning articulated below.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pena v. Sessions · Ali v. Garland“reading of an underlying [state] criminal statute (as to which it has no expertise).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"conduct that shocks the public conscience as being inherently base, vile, or depraved, and contrary to the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed between persons or to society in general," or, in other words, "an act which is per se morally reprehensible and intrinsically wrong" and is "accompanied by a vicious motive or a corrupt mind."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pena 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.