Martinez v. Sessions’s Empirical Analysis
893 F.3d 1067 · 2018
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 802 (§ 102 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 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))
Relies on Descamps v. United States · 195 L. Ed. 2d 604 - Mathis v. United States · Descamps v. United States · Moncrieffe v. Holder · 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“assume that the state conviction rested upon nothing more than the least of the acts criminalized by the state statute and then determine whether that state statute fits within the removable offense identified by federal law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Salazar v. Barr“the possession, with intent to distribute, of any one of the different controlled substances listed in Schedules I through V [is] a separate and distinct offense under § 195.211.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“After applying this modified categorical approach, if the elements of the offense of conviction fit within the removable offense, the alien is removable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Salazar v. Barr
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.