United States v. Ramirez’s Empirical Analysis
905 F.2d 97 · 1990
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently August 2016
3 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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. § 1225 (§ 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Pullman-Standard v. Swint · Poland v. Arizona · Reisman v. Caplin · Orchards v. United States · Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Federal Trade Commission
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where an agency must resort to judicial enforcement of its subpoenas, courts generally dismiss anticipatory actions filed by parties challenging such subpoenas as not being ripe for review because of the availability of an adequate remedy at law if, and when, the agency files an enforcement action.”
2 later decisions 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.