Magnuson v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis
911 F.2d 330 · 1990
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently July 2013
5 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 18 U.S.C. § 1544 · 22 U.S.C. § 2705 · 8 U.S.C. § 1105A (§ 106 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1443 (§ 332 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1451 (§ 340 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1453 (§ 342 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1503 (§ 360 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. · Mathews v. Diaz · Central Montana Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. v. Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration · McNabb v. Bowen
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The following documents shall have the same force and effect as proof of United States citizenship as certificates of naturalization or of citizenship issued by the Attorney General or by a court having naturalization jurisdiction: (1) A passport, during its period of validity (if such period is the maximum period authorized by law), issued by the Secretary of State to a citizen of the United States.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Section 2705 grants no revocation power to the Secretary and certainly none greater than could be exercised by the Attorney General or a naturalization court. As a result, assuming the Secretary can revoke a passport, he can do so only if he (a) gives the passport holder an opportunity to be heard prior to revocation, and (b) seeks revocation on the basis of fraud, misrepresentation, or some other exceptional ground. Section 2705 necessarily limits the grounds for revoking a passport to those expressed in sections 1451 and 1453. If we were to rule otherwise, we would accord those who use their passports as evidence of their citizenship less protection than those who use other documents denoting citizenship. Such a difference in treatment would contradict the “same force and effect” language of section 2705.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Prior to the enactment of section 2705, only the Attorney General or a naturalization court could determine who is a citizen of the United States.”
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.