Jean v. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis
727 F.2d 957 · 1984
Citation profile
142 federal appellate · 18 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 296 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2019 · most notably Commissioner, Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Jean (1990), Jean v. Nelson (1985)
142 federal appellate · 18 district · 3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 5 U.S.C. § 551 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 553 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1103 (§ 103 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1105A (§ 106 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (§ 208 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 Wolff v. McDonnell · Bishop v. Wood · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Y Button · Hewitt v. Helms · Yick Wo v. Hopkins
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 296 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he Attorney General may ... in his discretion parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe for emergent reasons or for reasons deemed strictly in the public interest any alien applying for admission to the United States, but such parole of such alien shall not be regarded as an admission of the alien....”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Moret v. Karn · Garcia-Mir v. Smith“have no constitutional rights with regard to their applications and must be content to accept whatever statutory rights and privileges they are granted by Congress.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““[Ijnsofar as the first three counts set forth matters alleged to be part of a pattern and practice by Immigration officials to violate the constitutional rights of a class of aliens they constitute wrongs which are independently cognizable in the district court under its federal question jurisdiction. Although a court of appeals may have sole jurisdiction to review alleged procedural irregularities in an individual deportation hearing to the extent these irregularities may provide a basis for reversing an individual deportation order, that is not to say that a program, pattern or scheme by Immigration officials to violate the constitutional rights of aliens is not a separate matter subject to examination by a district court and to the entry of at least declaratory and injunctive relief. The distinction we draw is one between the authority of a court of appeals to pass upon the merits of an individual deportation order and any action in the deportation proceeding to the extent it may affect the merits determination, on the one hand, and, on the other, the authority of a district court to wield its equitable powers when a wholesale, carefully orchestrated, program of constitutional violations is alleged. In concluding that the district court had jurisdiction over the first three counts, we wish to emphasize the factual uniqueness of this case. Our holding is not to be construed as permitting a constitutional challenge in the district court based on a procedural ruling in a dep”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Kashani v. Nelson · Tefel v. Reno
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.