Perez v. Cissna’s Empirical Analysis
914 F.3d 846 · 2019
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1738 · 28 U.S.C. § 1738A · 5 U.S.C. § 706 · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1232 · 8 U.S.C. § 1357 (§ 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1361 (§ 291 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert · Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation · United States v. Mead Corp.
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“must conduct a searching and careful review to determine whether the agency's decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Roe v. Shanahan“examine[d] the relevant data and articulate[d] a satisfactory explanation for its action,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Roe v. Shanahan“that the finding related to reunification was intended to last to the age of majority”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. J.L. v. Cissna
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.