Cervantez v. Whitfield’s Empirical Analysis
776 F.2d 556 · 1985
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently February 2016
6 federal appellate · 1 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 28 U.S.C. § 2412 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 8 U.S.C. § 1251 (§ 241 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)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1282 (§ 252 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1357 (§ 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Hensley v. Eckerhart · Spencer v. National Labor Relations Board · Iranian Students Ass'n v. Edwards · Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Realm of Louisiana v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board U S
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““4. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1357 (a)(2) and in accordance with INS policy, an immigration hold authorized by an immigration officer expires twenty-four (24) hours after the immigration hold takes effect unless within the 24 hours: (a) the person detained is advised of his rights pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 287.3 and is seen, in person, by an immigartion [sic] officer and examined to determine whether there is probable cause that the person is deportable or excludable, and (b) either (1) a properly executed Order to Show Cause with notice of available free legal services in the area is served on the detainee or, (2) the detainee voluntarily executes a request to depart voluntarily from the United States. It is INS policy that upon expiration of an immigration hold, the state, county, or local law enforcement agency detaining the person must release from custody any person so held.” (Id. at p. 560.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“in a civil action brought by or against the United States, including judicial proceedings to review agency action, unless the court finds that the government's position”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Pub.L. No. 99-80, Sec. 2(c)(2)(B), 99 Stat. 185 (to be codified at 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2412(d)(2)(D)). The responsible House Committee expressly rejected”
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.