de Allende v. Shultz’s Empirical Analysis
845 F.2d 1111 · 1988
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 13 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably New Hampshire Right to Life Political Action Committee v. Gardner (1996), United States v. Meléndez-Santana (2003)
30 federal appellate · 13 district · 1 state decisions
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 22 U.S.C. § 2691 · 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1185 (§ 215 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca · Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. · United States v. W. T. Grant Co. · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · Russello v. United States
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`It is the duty of the court to give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute, avoiding, if it may be, any construction which implies that the legislature was ignorant of the meaning of the language it employed.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[a]lthough the specific application of that policy against Allende in March 1983 is moot, the validity of that policy in general remains a live controversy.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The language of subsection 27 clearly articulates the scope of the provision ... [and] establishes clear criteria for exclusion ... [T]he statute makes clear the anticipation of post-entry activity as a prerequisite to exclusion. We simply fail to see how an alien can enter to engage in the act of entry. Reading the disputed language out of the provision would violate established principles of statutory construction ... In the instant case, Congress clearly distinguished between exclusion based on an alien’s identity and exclusion based on an alien’s activity. To disregard that distinction would undercut the clear meaning of the statute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. De Allende v. Shultz
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.