Garcia-Mir v. Meese’s Empirical Analysis
788 F.2d 1446 · 1986
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably United States v. Yousef (2003), Errol Lynch v. Joseph S. Cannatella, Jr. (1987)
30 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (§ 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1522 (§ 412 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Morrissey v. Brewer · Wolff v. McDonnell · Bonner v. City of Prichard · Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority · Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“where there is no treaty, and no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“public international law is controlling only”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Appellees provide us with no precedent or logical basis for the proposition that the President or one of his subordinates can, through written or oral public statements alone, create actionable liberty interests. The long-range implications of such a holding would be both profound and dangerous. It is a hallmark of our system of government that certain rights and liberties are enshrined in the social compact. These guarantees may be expanded or contracted through any of several constitutionally provided-for processes. But to give countenance to the notion that one of the political branches can simply wave a magic wand and “create” (and by implication extinguish) constitutional rights would be to undo completely the notion of limited government through separated, checked and balanced powers. This is a step we decline to take.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.