Lemus v. Lynch’s Empirical Analysis
842 F.3d 641 · 2016
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1229B (§ 240a 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))
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson · National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services · Harper v. Virginia Department of Taxation · Hector Tito Lujan-Armendariz v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Mauro Roldan-Santoyo v. Immigration and 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.
“will favor retroactivity if a party could reasonably have anticipated the change in the law such that the new requirement would not be a complete surprise.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Szonyi v. Whitaker“[Petitioner] was on notice that our approach was vulnerable based upon repeated contrary decisions, not only from the BIA but from other circuits as well.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Betansos v. Barr“The second and third factors are intertwined”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Szonyi v. Whitaker
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.