Mantena v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
809 F.3d 721 · 2015
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from New York Southern District Court)
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1153 (§ 203 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1154 (§ 204 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1155 (§ 205 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 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · 134 S. Ct. 1377 - Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. · 135 S. Ct. 2480 - King v. Burwell · Aurecchione v. Schoolman Transportation System, Inc. · Sharkey v. Quarantillo
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In deciding a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court should 'apply the same standard as that applicable to a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), accepting the allegations contained in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), ... no court shall have jurisdiction to review[:] (i) any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section .... 1255 of this title [ (relating to adjustment of status) ], or (ii) any other decision or action of the Attorney General or the- Secretary of Homeland Security the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security.... *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“USCIS acted inconsistently with the statutory portability provisions of AC-21 by providing notice of an intent to revoke neither i) to an alien beneficiary who has availed herself of the portability provisions to move to a successor employer nor ii) to the successor employer, who is not the original 1-140 petitioner, but who, as contemplated by AC-21, has in effect adopted the original 1-140 petition.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Musunuru v. Lynch
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.