Pineda v. Whitaker’s Empirical Analysis
908 F.3d 836 · 2018
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 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)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1254A (§ 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Nken v. Holder · LOZADA · Lopez v. Gonzales · Joseph A. Puleio v. George A. Vose, Jr., Etc. · Kassel v. Gannett Co.
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Motions to reopen removal proceedings are disfavored because they impinge upon 'the compelling public interests in finality and the expeditious processing of [immigration] proceedings.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Nantume v. Barr · Lin v. Barr“as a leading case with respect to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in the immigration context.”
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.