Diop v. Lynch’s Empirical Analysis
807 F.3d 70 · 2015
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (§ 237 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 Drope v. Missouri · Reno v. Flores · Thompson v. Keohane · Maggio v. Fulford · Rusu v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service
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.
“factual finding of competency ... under the substantial evidence standard and treat[s] [the finding] as conclusive unless the evidence presented 'was such that any reasonable adjudicator would have been compelled to conclude to the contrary.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Mental competency is not a static condition'; what matters is respondent's mental state at the time of the removal proceedings .... While past mental history can certainly bear on competency, it is by no means dispositive.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“To order the removal of someone unable to participate meaningfully in his or her removal proceedings would make the whole process a charade”
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.