J.D. v. Azar’s Empirical Analysis
925 F.3d 1291 · 2019
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 6 U.S.C. § 279 · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 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. § 1229C (§ 240b of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1232
Relies on Warth v. Seldin · Roe v. Wade · Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. · Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor · Gerstein v. Pugh
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Mootness alone . . . does not establish [the named plaintiffs'] inadequacy as representatives.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Cohen v. Walsh“[T]he presence of uninterested individuals in a class does not compel a finding of inadequacy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Cohen v. Walsh“bears the burden of proving an exception applies.”
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.