Karingithi v. Whitaker’s Empirical Analysis
913 F.3d 1158 · 2019
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 9 district ·
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (§ 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1229 (§ 239 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))
Relies on Sorenson v. Secretary of the Treasury · 138 S. Ct. 2105 - Pereira v. Sessions · Hernandez-Perez v. Whitaker · 27 I. & N. Dec. 441 - BERMUDEZ-COTA · Lezama-Garcia 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“time and place at which the [removal] proceedings will be held.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[j]urisdiction vests, and proceedings before an Immigration Judge commence, when a charging document is filed with the Immigration Court by the Service.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Banegas Gomez v. Barr · Ali v. Barr“Section 1229 says nothing about the Immigration Court's jurisdiction.”
8 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.