Penalva v. Sessions’s Empirical Analysis
884 F.3d 521 · 2018
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1029 · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (§ 237 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. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on United States v. Olano · LOZADA · Yu Zhao v. Gonzales · United States v. Scroggins · Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Servs. of Chicago
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“capricious, irrational, utterly without foundation in the evidence, based on legally erroneous interpretations of statutes or regulations, or based on unexplained departures from regulations or established policies.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[n]othing in [ § 1252(a)(2)(C) ] shall be construed as precluding review of”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Diaz v. Sessions“[W]hether [a litigant] diligently pursued her rights is a question of fact.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Diaz v. Sessions
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.