Swaby v. Yates’s Empirical Analysis
847 F.3d 62 · 2017
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 802 (§ 102 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (§ 237 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 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation Same · Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez · National Labor Relations Board v. Wyman-Gordon Co. · 195 L. Ed. 2d 604 - Mathis v. United States · Moncrieffe v. Holder
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[ Duenas-Alvarez 's] sensible caution against crediting speculative assertions regarding the potentially sweeping scope of ambiguous state law crimes has no relevance to a case like this [where the state law at issue unambiguously covered one drug not on the federal schedules, as relevant for removal eligibility under the INA]. The state crime at issue clearly does apply more broadly than the federally defined offense.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he state crime at issue clearly does apply more broadly than the federally defined offense.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]o find that a state statute creates a crime outside the generic definition of a listed crime in a federal statute requires more than the application of legal imagination to a state statute's language. It requires a realistic probability, not a theoretical possibility, that the State would apply its statute to conduct that falls outside the generic definition of a crime.”
3 later decisions 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.