753 F. Supp. 2d 1113 - Hall v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 363 · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1963 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 8 U.S.C. § 1324 (§ 274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1324A (§ 274a of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Kumho Tire Company, Ltd., et al. v. Patrick Carmichael, Etc., et al.
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.
“wages at Pilgrim’s Pride should fall if immigrants had moved into the area, even if Pilgrim’s Pride had never hired a single one. Thus, the same decline in plaintiffs’ real wages would occur even if the defendants had not committed the required predicate act — a fact that entirely eviscerates the assumption that the hiring (much less hiring with requisite knowledge) was the “but for” cause of plaintiffs’ depressed wages. Any or all of these factors (and probably several more) could easily explain a diminution in wages; yet ... Dr. Borjas would control for none of them and would, instead, attribute the entire diminution in wage to increased labor supply and then multiply that coefficient by the number of immigrants allegedly hired in violation of the INA.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“harbored the illegal aliens by providing both housing and employment ") (emphasis added); Varkonyi , 645.2d at 459 (finding a violation of Section 1324's harboring provision where the defendant provided both employment and lodging to illegal aliens and forcibly interfered with INS agents to prevent the aliens' apprehension). While the act of providing housing to unlawfully present aliens may be significant evidence that the provider has "harbored”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The plain language reading of `harbor' to require provision of shelter or refuge, or the taking of active steps to prevent authorities from discovering that the employee is unauthorized or illegally remaining in the country, should control.”
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.