Nunez v. Sessions’s Empirical Analysis
882 F.3d 499 · 2018
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 2024
3 federal appellate ·
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. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1229 (§ 239 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1229A (§ 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (§ 241 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 Cinel v. Connick · Kuang-Te Wang v. Ashcroft · Gomez-Palacios v. Holder · Singh v. Gonzales · M-R-A
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the focus is whether the alien actually received the required notice and not whether the notice was properly mailed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.”
1 later decision 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.