Saka v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
741 F.3d 244 · 2013
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (§ 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation · Stone v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Albathani v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · United States v. Metropolitan District Commission · Raza v. Gonzales
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under [the abuse of discretion] standard, we uphold decisions unless they are made without a rational explanation, inexplicably depart from established policies, or rest on an impermissible basis. Any error of law is, inherently, an abuse of discretion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any error of law is, inherently, an abuse of discretion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“nothing left to do but execute the judgment.”
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.