Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 891 F.2d 7 - De Allende v. Baker

De Allende v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis

891 F.2d 7 · 1989

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
2
states following
May 2023
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably United States v. Plat 20, Lot 17 (1992), Montgomery v. United States (1953)

19 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions

20019891990200020102020decided

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

Relies on Pierce v. Underwood · In re Josephson · Reagan v. Abourezk · Abourezk v. Reagan · Sierra Club v. Secretary of the Army

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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[Substantially justified] has never been described as meaning “justified to a high degree,” but rather has been said to be satisfied if there is a “genuine dispute” or “if reasonable people could differ so as to [the appropriateness of the contested action]”.... We are of the view, therefore, that as between the two commonly used connotations of the word “substantially,” the one most naturally conveyed by the phrase before us here is not “justified to a high degree,” but rather “justified in substance or in the main” — that is, justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person. That is no different from the “reasonable basis both in law and fact” formulation adopted by the Ninth Circuit and the vast majority of other Courts of Appeals that have addressed this issue. To be “substantially justified” means, of course, more than merely undeserving of sanctions for frivolousness; that is assuredly not the standard for Government litigation of which a reasonable person would approve. *”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Under the abuse of discretion standard this court will reverse the decision of a district court only if we are left with a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Nothing in this section may be construed as authorizing or requiring the admission to the United States of any alien who is excludible for reasons other than membership in or affiliation with a proscribed organization.”
    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.