Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 912 F.3d 869 - Hamama v. Adducci

Hamama v. Adducci’s Empirical Analysis

912 F.3d 869 · 2018

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
June 2022
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Relationships

Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1221 (§ 231 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1225 (§ 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (§ 236 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. § 1229B (§ 240a of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (§ 241 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))

Relies on Preiser v. Rodriguez · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr · William Marbury v. James Madison · Bender v. Williamsport Area School District · Califano v. Yamasaki

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

  1. “) provides that [j]udicial review of determinations under section 1225(b)...and its implementation is available in an action instituted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, but shall be limited to determinations of (i) whether such section, or any regulation issued to implement such section, is constitutional. The Government contends that Plaintiffs' TAC represents the kind of”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]here is nothing in § 1252(f)(1) that suspends the writ of habeas corpus. It is true that habeas is barred as to injunctive relief for class actions , but there is nothing barring a class from seeking a traditional writ of habeas corpus (which is distinct from injunctive relief”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Under a plain reading of the text of the statute, the Attorney General's enforcement of long-standing removal orders falls squarely under the Attorney General's decision to execute removal orders and is not subject to judicial review.”
    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.