Cardenas v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
733 F.2d 909 · 1984
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Frolova v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1985), Ramirez de Arellano v. Weinberger (1984)
33 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 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 22 U.S.C. § 2151 (African Conflict Resolution Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1330 (§ 2 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976) · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Warth v. Seldin · Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. · Bell v. Hood · Califano v. Sanders
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A treaty may create judicially enforceable rights if the signing parties so desire.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. 50 Fair empl.prac.cas. 714, 50 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 39,202 Edward Temengil Justin Manglona Hiromi Rdiall Fred Heine Manuel Sablan Ramon Rechebei Charles Muller, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees/cross-Appellants v. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands Janet McCoy High Commissioner of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands United States Department of the Interior Manuel Lujon, Jr., Secretary of the Interior United States of America, Defendants-Appellants/cross-Appellees · Temengil“Nonetheless, we are not prepared today to conclude that Cardenas has standing to invoke the protection of the Constitution against actions of the American government. Given the difficulties and far-reaching consequences of a doctrine that enhances an alien’s standing to put on a constitutional mantle, we are reluctant to apply such a rationale to a case where the complaint is broadly drawn, the facts remain obscure, and where, in any event, such a conclusion may be unnecessary to the ultimate disposition of the plaintiff's claims.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is beyond peradventure that a foreign nonresident, non-hostile alien may, under some circumstances, enjoy the benefits of certain constitutional limitations imposed on United States actions. In more and more circumstances, federal courts have recognized the standing of nonresident aliens to invoke the protections afforded by the United States Constitution.”
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.