Mohammed v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis
866 F.2d 258 · 1989
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably Roldan v. Racette (1993), Zolicoffer v. DOJ (2003)
16 federal appellate · 2 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 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Browder v. Director Department of Corrections of Illinois · Universities Research Assn., Inc. v. Coutu · Lambert v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs · Rosano v. United States · Vito Matarese v. Eugene Lefevre
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Rule 60(b) ] is properly invoked where there are extraordinary circumstances, or where the judgment may work an extreme and undue hardship, and should be liberally construed when substantial justice will thus be served.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The extraordinary circumstance he alleged was the change in this circuit's law wrought by Schlup. The district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion because the court did not consider itself to have the power to enter an order contrary to what we had instructed it to do in our en banc decision. 10 On appeal, Cornell argues that under Schlup we must evaluate his newly discovered evidence claim under the less demanding”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cornell v. Nix“A post-judgment change in the law having retroactive application may, in special circumstances, constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting vacation of a judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cornell v. Nix
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.