Flores v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
779 F.3d 159 · 2015
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3509 · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 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)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (§ 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Xiao Ji Chen v. United States Department of Justice · Xue Hong Yang v. United States Department of Justice · Descamps v. United States · Gonzales v. Thomas · Moncrieffe v. Holder
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“whether the state statute defining the crime of conviction categorically fits within the generic federal definition of a corresponding”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[o]nce the correct alternative is identified, the focus must return to the elements, rather than the facts, of [the] crime”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“'presume that the conviction rested upon nothing more than the least of the acts criminalized' under the state statute.”
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.