Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 788 F.3d 638 - Thompson v. Lynch

Thompson v. Lynch’s Empirical Analysis

788 F.3d 638 · 2015

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
January 2022
most recently cited

1 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently January 2022

1 federal appellate ·

6020152020decided

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. § 1229 (§ 239 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1229A (§ 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation Same · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation · Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. · Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States · Federal Crop Ins Corporation v. Merrill

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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) the respondent's affidavit; (2) affidavits from family members or other individuals who are knowledgeable about the facts relevant to whether notice was received; (3) the respondent's actions upon learning of the in absentia order, and whether due diligence was exercised in seeking to redress the situation; (4) any prior affirmative application for relief, indicating that the respondent had an incentive to appear; (5) any prior application for relief filed with the Immigration Court or any prima facie evidence in the record or the respondent's motion of statutory eligibility for relief, indicating that the respondent had an incentive to appear; (6) the respondent's previous attendance at Immigration Court hearings, if applicable; and (7) any other circumstances or evidence indicating possible nonreceipt of notice.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis such as invidious discrimination against a particular race or group.”
    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.