Kariuki v. Tarango’s Empirical Analysis
709 F.3d 495 · 2013
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 911 · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1421 (§ 310 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1427 (§ 316 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1440 (§ 329 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1447 (§ 336 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Kungys v. United States · United States v. Florida East Coast Railway Co.
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he court shall make its own findings of fact and conclusions of law and shall, at the request of the petitioner, conduct a hearing de novo on the application.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“a vague or conclusory affidavit [without more] is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact in the face of conflicting probative evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[s]elf-serving allegations are not the type of significant probative evidence required to defeat summary judgment,”
2 later decisions 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.